CVE-2024-5256
Memory Safety in Sonos Era 100 Firmware 15.9
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:NSummary
CVE-2024-5256 is a medium-severity Wrap or Wraparound (CWE-191) vulnerability in Sonos Era 100 Firmware. Its CVSS base score is 4.3 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 35th 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-8 (Security and Privacy Engineering Principles) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-46494
Vulnerability Data
Sonos Era 100 SMB2 Message Handling Integer Underflow Information Disclosure Vulnerability. This vulnerability allows network-adjacent attackers to disclose sensitive information on affected installations of Sonos Era 100 smart speakers. Authentication is not required to exploit this vulnerability. The specific flaw…
more
exists within the handling of SMB2 messages. The issue results from the lack of proper validation of user-supplied data, which can result in an integer underflow before reading from memory. An attacker can leverage this in conjunction with other vulnerabilities to execute arbitrary code in the context of root. Was ZDI-CAN-22336.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and static/dynamic analysis directly find integer underflow defects before code is released.
Security engineering principles require use of safe arithmetic constructs or language features that structurally eliminate integer underflow during subtraction.
Input validation can reject or sanitize values that would cause a subtraction to underflow the representable range.
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 SDLC practices directly prevent integer underflow defects via input validation, bounds checking, and static analysis.
Vulnerability scanning and code analysis can surface underflow flaws after they are introduced.
Routine patching can remediate known underflow bugs once they are discovered in deployed software.
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 catches integer underflow defects before release.
Secure development lifecycle mandates input validation and arithmetic checks that prevent integer underflow.
Application security requirements include bounds checking and safe arithmetic to avoid underflow conditions.
Secure architecture principles require defensive coding patterns that mitigate integer wraparound risks.
Secure coding standards directly prescribe safe integer handling and overflow/underflow prevention.