Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:LSummary
CVE-2024-27128 is a medium-severity Classic Buffer Overflow (CWE-120) vulnerability in Qnap Qts. Its CVSS base score is 6.4 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 50th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-24378
Vulnerability Data
A buffer copy without checking size of input vulnerability has been reported to affect several QNAP operating system versions. If exploited, the vulnerability could allow authenticated users to execute code via a network. We have already fixed the vulnerability in…
more
the following version: QTS 5.1.7.2770 build 20240520 and later QuTS hero h5.1.7.2770 build 20240520 and later
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 2 hardening rules · 2 OS baselines
V5.2.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and analysis can find missing size checks before deployment.
Input validation directly enforces size checks before buffer copies.
Memory-protection mechanisms limit the ability to execute injected code after a stack overflow.
Engineering principles require bounds checking and safe buffer handling in design.
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 development practices directly enforce bounds checking and input validation that prevent classic buffer overflows.
Vulnerability identification processes such as code review or scanning detect classic buffer overflows before exploitation.
Routine patching replaces vulnerable code containing unchecked buffer copies with corrected versions.
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.
Secure coding directly requires bounds-checked memory operations, addressing the root cause of CWE-120.
Security testing in development and acceptance can detect buffer overflows through fuzzing and static analysis, though it does not prevent them at the source.
Secure development life cycle mandates processes that can include input validation and bounds checking to prevent buffer overflows.
Application security requirements can specify input-size validation and safe buffer handling to mitigate classic buffer overflows.
Secure system architecture and engineering principles promote defensive coding patterns that reduce the likelihood of unchecked buffer copies.
Change-management gates can enforce security reviews that catch buffer issues.
Hardening callouts derived
Configuration rules from DISA STIG baselines that bear on weaknesses of the type cited by this CVE. Each rule is shown with the relationship its mapping actually records, against the CWE it was authored against. Derived via CVE→CWE over `controls_xwalks` (authoritative rows only; rows rated `none` are excluded).
Oracle Linux 8 (1 rule)
- V-248594 OL 8 must implement address space layout randomization (ASLR) to protect its memory from unauthorized code execution. prevents CWE-121
Oracle Linux 9 (1 rule)
- V-271452 OL 9 must use a Linux Security Module configured to enforce limits on system services. prevents CWE-121