Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2024-38120 is a high-severity Heap-based Buffer Overflow (CWE-122) vulnerability in Microsoft Windows Server 2008. Its CVSS base score is 8.8 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked in the top 26% 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.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
CVE-2024-38120 is a remote code execution vulnerability in the Windows Routing and Remote Access Service (RRAS) component. It carries a CVSS 3.1 base score of 8.8 and is associated with CWE-122. The flaw was published on 13 August 2024.
An unauthenticated attacker can trigger the issue over the network with low attack complexity and no privileges required, provided the victim performs a single user interaction. Successful exploitation grants the attacker full control over confidentiality, integrity, and availability on the affected system.
The official Microsoft Security Response Center advisory at https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2024-38120 supplies patch information and mitigation guidance. The associated EPSS score has remained flat at 0.0626 with no material increase since disclosure.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-37230
Vulnerability Data
Windows Routing and Remote Access Service (RRAS) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
- 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.
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 ensures controlled deployment of fixes for discovered heap-overflow vulnerabilities.