CVE-2024-37158
Evmos ≤ 18.0.0
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:LSummary
CVE-2024-37158 is a low-severity Insufficient Control Flow Management (CWE-691) vulnerability in Evmos Evmos. Its CVSS base score is 3.5 (Low).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Hijack Execution Flow (T1574); ranked at the 36th 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 SC-2 (Separation of System and User Functionality) and SC-3 (Security Function Isolation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-36470
Vulnerability Data
Evmos is the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) Hub on the Cosmos Network. Preliminary checks on actions computed by the clawback vesting accounts are performed in the ante handler. Evmos core, implements two different ante handlers: one for Cosmos transactions and…
more
one for Ethereum transactions. Checks performed on the two implementation are different. The vulnerability discovered allowed a clawback account to bypass Cosmos ante handler checks by sending an Ethereum transaction targeting a precompile used to interact with a Cosmos SDK module. This vulnerability is fixed in 18.0.0.
- 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
—
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Separating user and system functionality structurally limits unexpected control-flow transfers between domains.
Isolating security functions prevents control-flow tampering that would otherwise bypass or alter security decisions.
Process isolation keeps execution domains separate so one process cannot hijack another's control flow.
Memory protection blocks unauthorized code execution that would modify control flow at runtime.
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 activities such as static analysis, code review, and testing directly prevent control-flow weaknesses while also addressing many other coding defects.
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 control-flow weaknesses but does not itself implement preventive controls.
Secure development life cycle mandates structured control-flow design and review that directly reduces unexpected flow manipulation.
Secure system architecture and engineering principles require explicit control-flow integrity mechanisms and error-handling paths.
Secure coding standards explicitly forbid constructs that allow unintended control-flow changes such as missing breaks or unsafe jumps.
Change management reduces introduction of control-flow defects through controlled updates but does not address the weakness directly.
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).
Windows 10 (1 rule)
- V-220726 Data Execution Prevention (DEP) must be configured to at least OptOut. prevents CWE-691
Windows 11 (1 rule)
- V-253283 Data Execution Prevention (DEP) must be configured to at least OptOut. prevents CWE-691