CVE-2024-2961
Memory Safety in Gnu Glibc 2.1.93 – 2.40
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:HSummary
CVE-2024-2961 is a high-severity Out-of-bounds Write (CWE-787) vulnerability in Netapp Hci Compute Node. Its CVSS base score is 7.3 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked in the top 0.2% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; 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 SA-15 (Development Process, Standards, and Tools) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
The vulnerability is a buffer overflow in the iconv() function of the GNU C Library (glibc) in versions 2.39 and earlier. When converting input strings to the ISO-2022-CN-EXT character set, the function can write up to four bytes beyond the end of the caller-supplied output buffer, classified under CWE-787. This flaw received a CVSS 3.1 score of 7.3 with a local attack vector, no privileges required, and impacts that include limited confidentiality and integrity loss alongside high availability impact.
An unauthenticated local attacker can trigger the overflow by supplying a malicious string to any application that invokes iconv() for the affected charset conversion. Successful exploitation may crash the process or corrupt an adjacent variable, potentially allowing limited control over program behavior without network access or user interaction.
Public discussion and patch information appear in the referenced oss-security postings from April and May 2024, which address coordinated disclosure and distribution updates for glibc. The associated EPSS score has remained high, reaching a peak of 0.9292 with a current value of 0.9192, indicating sustained exploitation interest following disclosure.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-27902
Vulnerability Data
The iconv() function in the GNU C Library versions 2.39 and older may overflow the output buffer passed to it by up to 4 bytes when converting strings to the ISO-2022-CN-EXT character set, which may be used to crash an…
more
application or overwrite a neighbouring variable.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation (including fuzzing and bounds checks) finds out-of-bounds write flaws before deployment.
Requiring documented secure-development standards and tools can mandate bounds-checked coding practices that avoid the weakness.
Input validation can structurally reject or sanitize data that would otherwise trigger an out-of-bounds write.
Memory-protection mechanisms limit the exploitability and blast radius of a successful out-of-bounds write.
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 (static analysis, bounds checking, code review) are the primary means of preventing out-of-bounds writes.
Vulnerability scanning and recording can discover out-of-bounds write flaws so they can be remediated.
Patching or replacing vulnerable software directly eliminates known instances of this coding weakness.
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 and prevent out-of-bounds write defects.
Secure development life cycle mandates practices that prevent out-of-bounds writes.
Application security requirements can specify bounds-checking and safe memory handling.
Secure architecture and engineering principles reduce the likelihood of buffer overflows.
Secure coding directly addresses out-of-bounds writes through language choice and coding standards.
Change management can enforce review gates that catch unsafe memory operations before deployment.