CVE-2024-32475
Envoyproxy Envoy 1.13.0 – 1.27.5
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HSummary
CVE-2024-32475 is a high-severity Incorrect Check of Function Return Value (CWE-253) vulnerability in Envoyproxy Envoy. Its CVSS base score is 7.5 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Application or System Exploitation (T1499.004); ranked at the 49th 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 SA-15 (Development Process, Standards, and Tools) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-30285
Vulnerability Data
Envoy is a cloud-native, open source edge and service proxy. When an upstream TLS cluster is used with `auto_sni` enabled, a request containing a `host`/`:authority` header longer than 255 characters triggers an abnormal termination of Envoy process. Envoy does not…
more
gracefully handle an error when setting SNI for outbound TLS connection. The error can occur when Envoy attempts to use the `host`/`:authority` header value longer than 255 characters as SNI for outbound TLS connection. SNI length is limited to 255 characters per the standard. Envoy always expects this operation to succeed and abnormally aborts the process when it fails. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.30.1, 1.29.4, 1.28.3, and 1.27.5.
- 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 code analysis can discover missing or incorrect return-value checks.
Documented development standards and tools can mandate verified checking of every function return value.
Security engineering principles include requirements for robust error checking of all function returns.
Validating untrusted inputs structurally prevents attacker data from reaching and triggering assertions.
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 enforce proper error-handling and return-value checking during development.
Runtime monitoring of software can detect assertion-triggered crashes as adverse events.
Vulnerability identification processes can discover and record reachable-assertion flaws before deployment.
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 catches missing or incorrect return-value checks.
Secure SDLC mandates return-value checks and error handling, directly reducing CWE-253.
Application security requirements include robust error handling that mitigates incorrect return-value checks.
Secure architecture principles require defensive coding practices such as validating function results.
Secure coding explicitly demands checking return values, covering most of CWE-253.