Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2024-4323 is a critical-severity Heap-based Buffer Overflow (CWE-122) vulnerability in Treasuredata Fluent Bit. Its CVSS base score is 9.8 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked in the top 2% 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 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 memory corruption vulnerability affects Fluent Bit versions 2.0.7 through 3.0.3 in the embedded HTTP server’s parsing of trace requests. The flaw, tracked as CVE-2024-4323 with a CVSS score of 9.8, is associated with CWE-122 and CWE-787 and can produce denial-of-service conditions, information disclosure, or remote code execution.
An unauthenticated remote attacker can send specially crafted trace requests over the network to trigger the memory corruption. Because the attack requires no credentials or user interaction and carries low complexity, successful exploitation may allow arbitrary code execution, data leakage, or service disruption on the affected Fluent Bit instance.
Public references point to a fix committed in the Fluent Bit repository at commit 9311b43a258352797af40749ab31a63c32acfd04, and Tenable research note TRA-2024-17 provides additional technical details on the issue. The EPSS score stands at 0.8634 with an identical peak value, indicating sustained exploitation interest since disclosure.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-43966
Vulnerability Data
A memory corruption vulnerability in Fluent Bit versions 2.0.7 thru 3.0.3. This issue lies in the embedded http server’s parsing of trace requests and may result in denial of service conditions, information disclosure, or remote code execution.
- 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.