CVE-2024-51139
Memory Safety in Draytek Vigor2962 Firmware ≤ 4.3.2.9
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2024-51139 is a critical-severity Classic Buffer Overflow (CWE-120) vulnerability in Draytek Vigor2962 Firmware. 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 41% 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-2024-51139 is a buffer overflow vulnerability (CWE-120) affecting the CGI parser in multiple Draytek Vigor router models, including Vigor2620/LTE200 3.9.8.9 and earlier, Vigor2860/2925 3.9.8 and earlier, Vigor2862/2926 3.9.9.5 and earlier, Vigor2133/2762/2832 3.9.9 and earlier, Vigor165/166 4.2.7 and earlier, Vigor2135/2765/2766 4.4.5.1 and earlier, Vigor2865/2866/2927 4.4.5.3 and earlier, Vigor2962/3910 4.3.2.8/4.4.3.1 and earlier, and Vigor3912 4.3.6.1 and earlier. The flaw resides in how the parser processes the Content-Length header of incoming HTTP POST requests and carries a CVSS 3.1 score of 9.8.
An unauthenticated remote attacker can send a crafted HTTP POST request over the network to trigger the overflow, resulting in arbitrary code execution with full control over the affected device. No user interaction or credentials are required, and the attack surface is exposed to any network-reachable interface accepting such requests.
Public references point to Draytek and an advisory detailing multiple router issues, but no specific mitigation steps or patch availability details are provided in the source data. The associated EPSS score remains flat at 0.0675 with no observed rise after disclosure.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-5949
Vulnerability Data
Buffer Overflow vulnerability in Vigor2620/LTE200 3.9.8.9 and earlier and Vigor2860/2925 3.9.8 and earlier and Vigor2862/2926 3.9.9.5 and earlier and Vigor2133/2762/2832 3.9.9 and earlier and Vigor165/166 4.2.7 and earlier and Vigor2135/2765/2766 4.4.5.1 and earlier and Vigor2865/2866/2927 4.4.5.3 and earlier and Vigor2962/3910…
more
4.3.2.8/4.4.3.1 and earlier and Vigor3912 4.3.6.1 and earlier allows a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code via the CGI parser's handling of the "Content-Length" header of HTTP POST requests.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V5.2.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and analysis can find missing size checks before deployment.
Input validation directly enforces size checks before buffer copies.
Engineering principles require bounds checking and safe buffer handling in design.
Memory protection limits the impact of an overflow once it occurs.
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 enforce bounds checking and input validation that prevent classic buffer overflows.
Vulnerability identification processes such as code review or scanning detect classic buffer overflows before exploitation.
Routine patching replaces vulnerable code containing unchecked buffer copies with corrected versions.
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.
Secure coding directly requires bounds-checked memory operations, addressing the root cause of CWE-120.
Security testing in development and acceptance can detect buffer overflows through fuzzing and static analysis, though it does not prevent them at the source.
Secure development life cycle mandates processes that can include input validation and bounds checking to prevent buffer overflows.
Application security requirements can specify input-size validation and safe buffer handling to mitigate classic buffer overflows.
Secure system architecture and engineering principles promote defensive coding patterns that reduce the likelihood of unchecked buffer copies.