CVE-2024-53269
Envoyproxy Envoy 1.30.0 – 1.30.8
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HSummary
CVE-2024-53269 is a medium-severity Always-Incorrect Control Flow Implementation (CWE-670) vulnerability in Envoyproxy Envoy. Its CVSS base score is 4.5 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Application or System Exploitation (T1499.004); ranked at the 49th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-51924
Vulnerability Data
Envoy is a cloud-native high-performance edge/middle/service proxy. When additional address are not ip addresses, then the Happy Eyeballs sorting algorithm will crash in data plane. This issue has been addressed in releases 1.32.2, 1.31.4, and 1.30.8. Users are advised to…
more
upgrade. Users unable to upgrade may disable Happy Eyeballs and/or change the IP configuration.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise TechniquesAI
Why these techniques?
Vulnerability triggers Envoy proxy crash in data plane when processing invalid non-IP addresses in additionalAddresses via Happy Eyeballs algorithm, enabling endpoint denial of service through application exploitation.
MITRE ATLAS TechniquesAI
MITRE ATLAS techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V9.2.1
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.