Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2024-28231 is a critical-severity Heap-based Buffer Overflow (CWE-122) vulnerability in Eprosima Fast Dds. Its CVSS base score is 9.6 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked in the top 42% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; 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 SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-25347
Vulnerability Data
eprosima Fast DDS is a C++ implementation of the Data Distribution Service standard of the Object Management Group. Prior to versions 2.14.0, 2.13.4, 2.12.3, 2.10.4, and 2.6.8, manipulated DATA Submessage can cause a heap overflow error in the Fast-DDS process,…
more
causing the process to be terminated remotely. Additionally, the payload_size in the DATA Submessage packet is declared as uint32_t. When a negative number, such as -1, is input into this variable, it results in an Integer Overflow (for example, -1 gets converted to 0xFFFFFFFF). This eventually leads to a heap-buffer-overflow, causing the program to terminate. Versions 2.14.0, 2.13.4, 2.12.3, 2.10.4, and 2.6.8 contain a fix for this issue.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.4.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation (including fuzzing and memory-error detectors) can discover heap overflows after they have been coded.
Input validation enforces bounds checking on data written to heap buffers, directly stopping the overflow condition from being introduced.
Requiring documented secure-development standards and tools can mandate bounds-checked coding practices that avoid the weakness.
Security engineering principles require use of memory-safe constructs and bounds-checked allocation routines that avoid introducing heap overflows.
Memory-protection mechanisms limit the ability of a heap overflow to execute attacker-controlled code or corrupt adjacent structures.
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 require bounds checking and safe memory handling that prevent heap overflows.
Vulnerability scanning and recording can discover heap-overflow flaws but does not prevent their introduction in code.
Timely patching removes known heap-overflow instances after they exist.
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 heap overflows before release.
Secure development lifecycle mandates practices that reduce the likelihood of introducing heap overflows.
Application security requirements can specify bounds-checking and safe memory APIs that mitigate heap overflows.
Secure architecture and engineering principles include memory-safety and input-validation controls that address heap overflows.
Secure coding standards directly prescribe techniques (safe functions, bounds checks) that prevent heap-based buffer overflows.
Change management can enforce review gates that catch unsafe memory operations before deployment.