Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2024-51347 is a high-severity Classic Buffer Overflow (CWE-120) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 7.2 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 25th 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 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-2024-51347 is a buffer overflow vulnerability (CWE-120) affecting the dgiot binary in the LSC Smart Indoor IP Camera running firmware version V7.6.32. The issue arises in the ONVIF configuration interface during handling of the Time Zone (TZ) parameter, where the input length is not properly validated before being copied into a fixed-size buffer via the insecure strcpy function. This flaw has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.2 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H), indicating high severity with network accessibility and significant impacts on confidentiality, integrity, and availability.
An attacker with high privileges (PR:H) can exploit this vulnerability over the network with low complexity and no user interaction required. By sending a specially crafted TZ parameter to the ONVIF interface, the attacker triggers the buffer overflow, potentially leading to arbitrary code execution, data corruption, or denial of service on the affected device.
Details on the vulnerability, including proof-of-concept information, are available in the security research repository at https://github.com/victorGoeman/LSC-Indoor-Camera-Security-Research/blob/main/CVE-2024-51347.md and related resources. No official vendor patches or mitigation guidance are specified in the available information.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-55500
Vulnerability Data
A buffer overflow vulnerability in the dgiot binary in LSC Smart Indoor IP Camera V7.6.32. The flaw exists in the handling of the Time Zone (TZ) parameter within the ONVIF configuration interface. The time zone (TZ) parameter does not have…
more
its length properly validated before being copied into a fixed-size buffer using the insecure strcpy function.
- 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.