Cyber Resilience

CVE-2024-45433

Opensynergy Blue Sdk ≤ 6.0.1

Public PoC
Published
12 September 2025
Modified
02 October 2025
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v3.1 6.5
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
EPSS Score 0.0056 44th percentile
Risk Priority 52 floored blend · peak EPSS

CVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.

Summary

CVE-2024-45433 is a medium-severity Incorrect Control Flow Scoping (CWE-705) vulnerability in Opensynergy Blue Sdk. Its CVSS base score is 6.5 (Medium).

Operationally, ranked at the 44th 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 SA-8 (Security and Privacy Engineering Principles) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

OpenSynergy BlueSDK (aka Blue SDK) through 6.x has Incorrect Control Flow Scoping. The specific flaw exists within the BlueSDK Bluetooth stack. The issue results from the lack of proper return control flow after detecting an unusual condition. An attacker can…

more

leverage this to bypass a security validation and make the incoming data be processed.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2024-45434Same product: Opensynergy Blue Sdk
CVE-2024-45431Same product: Opensynergy Blue Sdk
CVE-2024-45432Same product: Opensynergy Blue Sdk
CVE-2026-3449Shared CWE-705
CVE-2025-53856Shared CWE-705
CVE-2026-40208Shared CWE-705
CVE-2026-3262Shared CWE-705
CVE-2026-10271Shared CWE-705
CVE-2026-3264Shared CWE-705
CVE-2025-9848Shared CWE-705

Affected Assets

opensynergy
blue sdk
≤ 6.0.1

Mitigating Controls

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

Developer testing and evaluation can discover missing returns, incorrect exception paths, or failure to restore control flow after unusual conditions.

Security engineering principles can require structured control-flow constructs and explicit state transitions that avoid improper scoping after tasks or errors.

Failing to a known state on indicated failures limits damage from control-flow errors without preventing the underlying scoping mistake.

Fail-safe procedures reduce the consequences of unhandled or mis-scoped control flow on failure but do not correct the scoping defect itself.

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.

PR.PS-06 mostly match
prevents

Secure SDLC practices directly prevent control-flow scoping errors in code while the control itself encompasses many additional development controls.

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.

finds

Security testing can detect control-flow scoping defects before release.

prevents

Secure development lifecycle practices can catch improper control-flow scoping during design and code review.

prevents

Secure coding standards directly address correct return and exception handling to prevent control-flow errors.

References