CVE-2024-52811
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:HSummary
CVE-2024-52811 is a high-severity Always-Incorrect Control Flow Implementation (CWE-670) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 8.2 (High).
Operationally, ranked in the top 47% 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 SA-15 (Development Process, Standards, and Tools) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-46056
Vulnerability Data
The ngtcp2 project is an effort to implement IETF QUIC protocol in C. In affected versions acks are not validated before being written to the qlog leading to a buffer overflow. In `ngtcp2_conn::conn_recv_pkt` for an ACK, there was new logic…
more
that got added to skip `conn_recv_ack` if an ack has already been processed in the payload. However, this causes us to also skip `ngtcp2_pkt_validate_ack`. The ack which was skipped still got written to qlog. The bug occurs in `ngtcp2_qlog::write_ack_frame`. It is now possible to reach this code with an invalid ack, suppose `largest_ack=0` and `first_ack_range=15`. Subtracting `largest_ack - first_ack_range` will lead to an integer underflow which is 20 chars long. However, the ngtcp2 qlog code assumes the number written is a signed integer and only accounts for 19 characters of overhead (see `NGTCP2_QLOG_ACK_FRAME_RANGE_OVERHEAD`). Therefore, we overwrite the buffer causing a heap overflow. This is high priority and could potentially impact many users if they enable qlog. qlog is disabled by default. Due to its overhead, it is most likely used for debugging purpose, but the actual use is unknown. ngtcp2 v1.9.1 fixes the bug and users are advised to upgrade. Users unable to upgrade should not turn on qlog.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V9.2.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation at post-design stages directly exercises control-flow paths and reveals mismatches between implemented and intended behavior.
Requiring a documented development process and supporting tools reduces the chance that incorrect control-flow logic is introduced in the first place.
Flaw identification and remediation processes can locate and correct control-flow errors once they manifest as incorrect runtime behavior.
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 incorrect control-flow implementations via reviews, testing, and static analysis.
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 paths that deviate from intended logic.
Secure development lifecycle processes can catch incorrect control-flow logic during design and code review.
Secure coding standards and reviews directly target flawed control-flow implementations.
Change-management gates may prevent deployment of flawed logic but do not address the coding defect itself.