Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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-2024-53270 is a high-severity Always-Incorrect Control Flow Implementation (CWE-670) vulnerability in Envoyproxy Envoy. Its CVSS base score is 7.5 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Endpoint Denial of Service (T1499); ranked in the top 49% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
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.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-51925
Vulnerability Data
Envoy is a cloud-native high-performance edge/middle/service proxy. In affected versions `sendOverloadError` is going to assume the active request exists when `envoy.load_shed_points.http1_server_abort_dispatch` is configured. If `active_request` is nullptr, only onMessageBeginImpl() is called. However, the `onMessageBeginImpl` will directly return ok status if…
more
the stream is already reset leading to the nullptr reference. The downstream reset can actually happen during the H/2 upstream reset. As a result envoy may crash. This issue has been addressed in releases 1.32.3, 1.31.5, 1.30.9, and 1.29.12. Users are advised to upgrade. Users unable to upgrade may disable `http1_server_abort_dispatch` load shed point and/or use a high threshold.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
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.
Engineering principles can mandate defensive coding such as explicit null checks before dereference.
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.
Application security requirements can specify input validation and pointer-safety rules.
Secure architecture principles encourage defensive design that avoids unsafe pointer use.
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.