Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2024-45555 is a high-severity Out-of-bounds Write (CWE-787) vulnerability in Qualcomm Msm8996Au Firmware. Its CVSS base score is 8.4 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 4th 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-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.
CVE-2024-45555 is a memory corruption vulnerability (CWE-787, CWE-190) in the IFS2 image verification process within Qualcomm products. It arises when an already verified IFS2 image is overwritten, bypassing boot verification mechanisms. This flaw allows unauthorized programs to be injected into security-sensitive images, enabling the booting of a tampered IFS2 system image. The vulnerability has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 8.4 (AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H) and was published on 2025-01-06.
A local attacker can exploit this vulnerability with low attack complexity and no privileges or user interaction required. By overwriting the verified IFS2 image, the attacker achieves memory corruption, injecting malicious code into security-sensitive boot images. Successful exploitation enables booting a fully tampered IFS2 system image, compromising confidentiality, integrity, and availability at a high level.
Mitigation details are provided in the Qualcomm January 2025 Security Bulletin, available at https://docs.qualcomm.com/product/publicresources/securitybulletin/january-2025-bulletin.html.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-41265
Vulnerability Data
Memory corruption can occur if an already verified IFS2 image is overwritten, bypassing boot verification. This allows unauthorized programs to be injected into security-sensitive images, enabling the booting of a tampered IFS2 system image.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V5.2.6
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.
Secure engineering principles require use of safe arithmetic constructs or language features that structurally eliminate integer overflow during calculation.
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.