CVE-2024-3852
Mozilla Firefox ≤ 115.10
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2024-3852 is a high-severity Symbolic Name not Mapping to Correct Object (CWE-386) vulnerability in Mozilla Firefox. Its CVSS base score is 7.5 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Hijack Execution Flow (T1574); ranked at the 47th 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 AC-3 (Access Enforcement) and SC-39 (Process Isolation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-32420
Vulnerability Data
GetBoundName could return the wrong version of an object when JIT optimizations were applied. This vulnerability affects Firefox < 125, Firefox ESR < 115.10, and Thunderbird < 115.10.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Enforces access decisions against the actual object rather than a mutable symbolic name.
Isolates execution domains so a process cannot be tricked by another process's name-to-object mappings.
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.
Hardened configuration baselines and change control directly reduce the chance that a symbolic name will later resolve to an unintended object.
Runtime monitoring can detect the adverse event after the wrong object has been used, but does not prevent the mapping flaw itself.
Least-privilege access policies and periodic review limit the ability of an attacker to alter the target of a symbolic reference.
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.
Secure development lifecycle practices can require explicit object resolution instead of relying on symbolic names that may change.
Secure architecture principles discourage use of mutable symbolic references that can resolve to unintended objects.
Secure coding standards can mandate direct object handles or validated lookups rather than symbolic names that drift.
Change management may catch configuration drift but does not directly address symbolic name resolution in code.