Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HSummary
CVE-2024-40764 is a high-severity Heap-based Buffer Overflow (CWE-122) vulnerability in Sonicwall Sonicos. Its CVSS base score is 7.5 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 50th 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 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.
A heap-based buffer overflow vulnerability tracked as CVE-2024-40764 affects the IPSec VPN component of SonicOS. The flaw, assigned CWE-122 and CWE-787, carries a CVSS 3.1 score of 7.5 and permits remote, unauthenticated attackers to trigger a denial of service without any user interaction.
An unauthenticated attacker with network access can send specially crafted traffic to the IPSec VPN service, causing memory corruption that results in a crash and loss of availability. The attack requires no credentials or prior access, aligning with the CVSS vector AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H.
SonicWall has published advisory SNWLID-2024-0012 detailing the issue. The current EPSS score stands at 0.1016 with an identical peak value, indicating moderate but stable exploitation probability since disclosure.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-38612
Vulnerability Data
Heap-based buffer overflow vulnerability in the SonicOS IPSec VPN allows an unauthenticated remote attacker to cause Denial of Service (DoS).
- 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.
Requiring documented secure-development standards and tools can mandate bounds-checked coding practices that avoid the weakness.
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 can enforce review gates that catch unsafe memory operations before deployment.