Cyber Resilience

CVE-2024-49013

Memory Safety in Microsoft Sql Server 2016 13.0.6300.2 – 13.0.6455.2

Published
12 November 2024
Modified
15 November 2024
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v3.1 8.8
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
EPSS Score 0.013 69th percentile
Risk Priority 71 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2024-49013 is a high-severity Heap-based Buffer Overflow (CWE-122) vulnerability in Microsoft Sql Server 2016. Its CVSS base score is 8.8 (High).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked in the top 31% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; 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 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.

CVE-2024-49013 is a remote code execution vulnerability in the SQL Server Native Client component. It carries a CVSS 3.1 base score of 8.8 with an attack vector of network, low attack complexity, no required privileges, and required user interaction, resulting in high impact to confidentiality, integrity, and availability. The weakness is tracked under CWE-122.

An unauthenticated remote attacker can exploit the flaw by convincing a user to interact with specially crafted content, such as opening a malicious file or visiting a web page that triggers the vulnerable client code. Successful exploitation grants the attacker the ability to execute arbitrary code in the context of the affected process.

Microsoft's advisory at https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2024-49013 provides official guidance on available patches and mitigations. The EPSS score rose from a low baseline to a peak of 0.0703 on 2025-12-11 before receding to the current value of 0.0403, indicating that exploitation interest increased after disclosure.

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

SQL Server Native Client Remote Code Execution Vulnerability

CWE(s)

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques

T1068 Exploitation for Privilege Escalation Privilege Escalation
Adversaries may exploit software vulnerabilities in an attempt to elevate privileges.
T1190 Exploit Public-Facing Application Initial Access
Adversaries may attempt to exploit a weakness in an Internet-facing host or system to initially access a network.
T1203 Exploitation for Client Execution Execution
Adversaries may exploit software vulnerabilities in client applications to execute code.
T1210 Exploitation of Remote Services Lateral Movement
Adversaries may exploit remote services to gain unauthorized access to internal systems once inside of a network.
T1212 Exploitation for Credential Access Credential Access
Adversaries may exploit software vulnerabilities in an attempt to collect credentials.
Derived from this CVE’s CWE(s) via the direct CWE→ATT&CK cross-walk.

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2024-49011Same product: Microsoft Sql Server 2016
CVE-2024-49000Same product: Microsoft Sql Server 2016
CVE-2024-48994Same product: Microsoft Sql Server 2016
CVE-2024-38255Same product: Microsoft Sql Server 2016
CVE-2024-49008Same product: Microsoft Sql Server 2016
CVE-2024-49010Same product: Microsoft Sql Server 2016
CVE-2024-48993Same product: Microsoft Sql Server 2016
CVE-2024-49006Same product: Microsoft Sql Server 2016
CVE-2024-48995Same product: Microsoft Sql Server 2016
CVE-2024-49004Same product: Microsoft Sql Server 2016

Affected Assets

microsoft
sql server 2016
13.0.6300.2 — 13.0.6455.2 · 13.0.7000.253 — 13.0.7050.2
microsoft
sql server 2017
14.0.1000.169 — 14.0.2070.1 · 14.0.3006.16 — 14.0.3485.1
microsoft
sql server 2019
15.0.2000.5 — 15.0.2130.3 · 15.0.4003.23 — 15.0.4410.1

Mitigating Controls

Control response

Prevent
Stop it (NIST 800-53)

Detect
Catch it (NIST detect / respond)

Harden
Shrink the surface (DISA STIG)

Validate
Prove the fix (OWASP ASVS)
  • 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.

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.

PR.PS-06 full match
prevents

Secure-development practices directly require bounds checking and safe memory handling that prevent heap overflows.

ID.RA-01 partial match
prevents

Vulnerability scanning and recording can discover heap-overflow flaws but does not prevent their introduction in code.

PR.PS-02 partial match
prevents

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.

finds

Security testing in development and acceptance can detect heap overflows before release.

prevents

Secure development lifecycle mandates practices that reduce the likelihood of introducing heap overflows.

prevents

Application security requirements can specify bounds-checking and safe memory APIs that mitigate heap overflows.

prevents

Secure architecture and engineering principles include memory-safety and input-validation controls that address heap overflows.

prevents

Secure coding standards directly prescribe techniques (safe functions, bounds checks) that prevent heap-based buffer overflows.

none

Change management ensures controlled deployment of fixes for discovered heap-overflow vulnerabilities.

References