CVE-2024-25622
Dena H2O ≤ 2024-02-11
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:NSummary
CVE-2024-25622 is a low-severity Always-Incorrect Control Flow Implementation (CWE-670) vulnerability in Dena H2O. Its CVSS base score is 3.1 (Low).
Operationally, ranked at the 36th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SA-15 (Development Process, Standards, and Tools) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-22943
Vulnerability Data
h2o is an HTTP server with support for HTTP/1.x, HTTP/2 and HTTP/3. The configuration directives provided by the headers handler allows users to modify the response headers being sent by h2o. The configuration file of h2o has scopes, and the…
more
inner scopes (e.g., path level) are expected to inherit the configuration defined in outer scopes (e.g., global level). However, if a header directive is used in the inner scope, all the definition in outer scopes are ignored. This can lead to headers not being modified as expected. Depending on the headers being added or removed unexpectedly, this behavior could lead to unexpected client behavior. This vulnerability is fixed in commit 123f5e2b65dcdba8f7ef659a00d24bd1249141be.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V9.2.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation at post-design stages directly exercises control-flow paths and reveals mismatches between implemented and intended behavior.
Requiring a documented development process and supporting tools reduces the chance that incorrect control-flow logic is introduced in the first place.
Flaw identification and remediation processes can locate and correct control-flow errors once they manifest as incorrect runtime behavior.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure SDLC practices directly prevent incorrect control-flow implementations via reviews, testing, and static analysis.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Security testing in development and acceptance can detect paths that deviate from intended logic.
Secure development lifecycle processes can catch incorrect control-flow logic during design and code review.
Secure coding standards and reviews directly target flawed control-flow implementations.
Change-management gates may prevent deployment of flawed logic but do not address the coding defect itself.