Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2024-40427 is a high-severity Classic Buffer Overflow (CWE-120) vulnerability in Dronecode Px4 Drone Autopilot. Its CVSS base score is 7.9 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 27th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
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-2024-40427 is a stack buffer overflow vulnerability (CWE-120) in PX4-Autopilot version 1.14.3. Published on 2025-01-07, it carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.9 (AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:H), indicating high severity due to its potential for significant integrity and availability impacts without confidentiality loss.
The vulnerability can be exploited by local attackers with low privileges who trick a user into some interaction. Successful exploitation enables command execution, allowing attackers to manipulate program behavior and cause the software to refuse execution, resulting in high integrity and availability disruptions within a changed scope.
Mitigation is addressed in a patch via GitHub commit e03e0261a1a0c82f545e66a1e3795956c886db71 in the PX4-Autopilot repository. Further details on the issue and remediation are available in the associated security advisory at GHSA-55wq-2hgm-75m4.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-38810
Vulnerability Data
Stack Buffer Overflow in PX4-Autopilot v1.14.3, which allows attackers to execute commands to exploit this vulnerability and cause the program to refuse to execute
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V5.2.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and analysis can find missing size checks before deployment.
Input validation directly enforces size checks before buffer copies.
Engineering principles require bounds checking and safe buffer handling in design.
Memory protection limits the impact of an overflow once it occurs.
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 enforce bounds checking and input validation that prevent classic buffer overflows.
Vulnerability identification processes such as code review or scanning detect classic buffer overflows before exploitation.
Routine patching replaces vulnerable code containing unchecked buffer copies with corrected versions.
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 coding directly requires bounds-checked memory operations, addressing the root cause of CWE-120.
Security testing in development and acceptance can detect buffer overflows through fuzzing and static analysis, though it does not prevent them at the source.
Secure development life cycle mandates processes that can include input validation and bounds checking to prevent buffer overflows.
Application security requirements can specify input-size validation and safe buffer handling to mitigate classic buffer overflows.
Secure system architecture and engineering principles promote defensive coding patterns that reduce the likelihood of unchecked buffer copies.