CVE-2024-25714
Debian Linux 11.0 … 12.0
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2024-25714 is a critical-severity Observable Discrepancy (CWE-203) vulnerability in Debian Debian Linux. Its CVSS base score is 9.8 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Account Discovery (T1087); ranked in the top 46% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to IA-6 (Authentication Feedback) and SI-11 (Error Handling) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-23026
Vulnerability Data
In Rhonabwy through 1.1.13, HMAC signature verification uses a strcmp function that is vulnerable to side-channel attacks, because it stops the comparison when the first difference is spotted in the two signatures. (The fix uses gnutls_memcmp, which has constant-time execution.)
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 1 hardening rule · 1 OS baseline
—
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Obscures authentication feedback so that success/failure differences are not observable to attackers.
Requires error messages to avoid revealing exploitable details, directly stopping observable response discrepancies.
Engineering principles can require constant-time or power-balanced comparison logic that structurally eliminates the side-channel leakage.
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 observable response discrepancies via consistent error handling and timing.
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 can include side-channel analysis to detect and remediate power-leakage vulnerabilities.
Cryptographic implementation guidance can require constant-time or masked algorithms that reduce power side-channel leakage during token comparison.
Secure architecture principles include hardware and software countermeasures against physical side-channel attacks.
Secure coding standards can mandate constant-time comparison routines and power-analysis-resistant implementations.
Accurate, synchronized timestamps reduce observable timing discrepancies that an attacker could exploit to infer sensitive information or distinguish between success and failure paths.