Cyber Resilience

CVE-2024-3044

Libreoffice ≤ 7.6.7.1

Published
14 May 2024
Modified
10 December 2025
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v3.1 6.5
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L
EPSS Score 0.010 60th percentile
Risk Priority 56 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2024-3044 is a medium-severity Product UI does not Warn User of Unsafe Actions (CWE-356) vulnerability in Libreoffice Libreoffice. Its CVSS base score is 6.5 (Medium).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 40% 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 SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

Unchecked script execution in Graphic on-click binding in affected LibreOffice versions allows an attacker to create a document which without prompt will execute scripts built-into LibreOffice on clicking a graphic. Such scripts were previously deemed trusted but are now deemed…

more

untrusted.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques

T1059 Command and Scripting Interpreter Execution
Adversaries may abuse command and script interpreters to execute commands, scripts, or binaries.
T1059.001 PowerShell Execution
Adversaries may abuse PowerShell commands and scripts for execution.
T1059.002 AppleScript Execution
Adversaries may abuse AppleScript for execution.
T1059.004 Unix Shell Execution
Adversaries may abuse Unix shell commands and scripts for execution.
T1059.005 Visual Basic Execution
Adversaries may abuse Visual Basic (VB) for execution.
T1059.006 Python Execution
Adversaries may abuse Python commands and scripts for execution.
Derived from this CVE’s CWE(s) via the direct CWE→ATT&CK cross-walk.

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2021-22204Same product: Debian Debian Linux
CVE-2020-8518Same product: Debian Debian Linux
CVE-2023-7101Same product: Debian Debian Linux
CVE-2019-9851Same product: Debian Debian Linux
CVE-2017-7494Same product: Debian Debian Linux
CVE-2023-28333Same product: Fedoraproject Fedora
CVE-2009-1151Same product: Debian Debian Linux
CVE-2023-51797Same product: Fedoraproject Fedora
CVE-2026-35093Same product: Fedoraproject Fedora
CVE-2018-7602Same product: Debian Debian Linux

Affected Assets

libreoffice
libreoffice
≤ 7.6.7.1 · 24.2.0.0 — 24.2.3.1
fedoraproject
fedora
39
debian
debian linux
10.0

Mitigating Controls

Control response

Prevent
Stop it (NIST 800-53)

Detect
Catch it (NIST detect / respond)

Harden
Shrink the surface (DISA STIG)
  • 1 hardening rule · 1 OS baseline
Validate
Prove the fix (OWASP ASVS)
  • V1.3.1

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

Developer testing and evaluation finds code paths that accept and execute externally influenced strings.

Input validation directly stops untrusted data from being used to construct executable code without neutralization.

Least privilege limits the damage an injected code fragment can perform once executed.

Requiring documented secure development standards and tools enforces use of safe code-generation APIs and escaping.

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.

PR.PS-06 mostly match
prevents

Secure SDLC practices include UI design requirements that warn users before unsafe actions.

PR.DS-10 none match
prevents

PR.DS-10 protects runtime data confidentiality/integrity but has no bearing on neutralizing externally influenced input during code generation, so neither direction shows any preventive effect.

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.

finds

Security testing can verify presence of warnings for unsafe user actions.

prevents

Security awareness training can teach users to heed or demand warnings for unsafe actions.

prevents

Secure development life cycle requires UI design to warn users before unsafe actions.

prevents

Application security requirements include user warnings for dangerous operations.

prevents

Secure architecture principles can mandate confirmation prompts for risky actions.

prevents

Secure coding practices can embed user warnings before unsafe operations.

References