Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2024-41126 is a high-severity Out-of-bounds Read (CWE-125) vulnerability in Contiki-Ng Contiki-Ng. Its CVSS base score is 8.3 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 21th 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 SA-8 (Security and Privacy Engineering Principles) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-39322
Vulnerability Data
Contiki-NG is an open-source, cross-platform operating system for IoT devices. An out-of-bounds read of 1 byte can be triggered when sending a packet to a device running the Contiki-NG operating system with SNMP enabled. The SNMP module is disabled in…
more
the default Contiki-NG configuration. The vulnerability exists in the os/net/app-layer/snmp/snmp-message.c module, where the snmp_message_decode function fails to check the boundary of the message buffer when reading a byte from it immediately after decoding an object identifier (OID). The problem has been patched in Contiki-NG pull request 2937. It will be included in the next release of Contiki-NG. Users are advised to either apply the patch manually or to wait for the next release. A workaround is to disable the SNMP module in the Contiki-NG build configuration.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation directly finds out-of-bounds read flaws through static analysis, fuzzing, and dynamic bounds checks.
Secure engineering principles require bounds checking and memory-safe constructs that stop out-of-bounds reads from being introduced.
Process isolation confines the effects of an out-of-bounds read to the compromised process.
Input validation rejects malformed indices or lengths that would otherwise cause reads outside buffer bounds.
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 such as bounds checking and memory-safe languages directly prevent out-of-bounds reads.
Vulnerability scanning and recording can discover instances of out-of-bounds reads after code is deployed.
Routine patching replaces vulnerable code containing out-of-bounds read flaws.
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 includes fuzzing and static analysis that detect out-of-bounds read defects before release.
Logging can record evidence of an out-of-bounds read but does not prevent the weakness itself.
Secure development life cycle mandates input validation and bounds checking that directly prevent out-of-bounds reads.
Application security requirements include explicit bounds and memory-safety specifications that mitigate buffer over-reads.
Secure system architecture and engineering principles require memory-safe design patterns and runtime protections against out-of-bounds access.
Secure coding standards explicitly forbid unsafe pointer arithmetic and mandate bounds-checked reads, eliminating CWE-125.