CVE-2024-42987
Memory Safety in Tenda Fh1206 Firmware v02.03.1.35
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HSummary
CVE-2024-42987 is a high-severity Out-of-bounds Write (CWE-787) vulnerability in Tenda Fh1206 Firmware. Its CVSS base score is 7.5 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked in the top 32% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; 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 SA-15 (Development Process, Standards, and Tools) — 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.
Tenda FH1206 firmware version 02.03.01.35 contains a stack-based buffer overflow in the fromPptpUserAdd function. The flaw arises when the modino, username, newpwd, or pptpdnetseg parameters supplied in an HTTP POST request are copied via unsafe sprintf calls that lack length checks, triggering CWE-787.
A remote unauthenticated attacker can send a single crafted POST request to the affected device to overflow the stack. Successful exploitation produces a denial of service; under favorable memory conditions the same primitive may permit remote code execution.
Public proof-of-concept code demonstrating each of the four trigger parameters has been published on GitHub. The EPSS score has remained flat at 0.0842 since disclosure, indicating no measurable increase in observed exploitation activity. No vendor advisory or firmware update addressing the issue appears among the referenced sources.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-39864
Vulnerability Data
Tenda FH1206 v02.03.01.35 was discovered to contain a stack-based buffer overflow vulnerability in the fromPptpUserAdd function. The vulnerability can be triggered via the modino, username, newpwd, or pptpdnetseg parameters, all of which are passed via HTTP POST and used in…
more
unsafe sprintf calls without proper length validation. A remote attacker can exploit this flaw through a crafted POST request, which may cause a Denial of Service (DoS). In certain scenarios, this issue could potentially be leveraged to achieve remote code execution.
- 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 (including fuzzing and bounds checks) finds out-of-bounds write flaws before deployment.
Requiring documented secure-development standards and tools can mandate bounds-checked coding practices that avoid the weakness.
Input validation can structurally reject or sanitize data that would otherwise trigger an out-of-bounds write.
Memory-protection mechanisms limit the exploitability and blast radius of a successful out-of-bounds write.
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 (static analysis, bounds checking, code review) are the primary means of preventing out-of-bounds writes.
Vulnerability scanning and recording can discover out-of-bounds write flaws so they can be remediated.
Patching or replacing vulnerable software directly eliminates known instances of this coding weakness.
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 and prevent out-of-bounds write defects.
Secure development life cycle mandates practices that prevent out-of-bounds writes.
Application security requirements can specify bounds-checking and safe memory handling.
Secure architecture and engineering principles reduce the likelihood of buffer overflows.
Secure coding directly addresses out-of-bounds writes through language choice and coding standards.
Change management can enforce review gates that catch unsafe memory operations before deployment.