Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/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-2024-55413 is a high-severity Out-of-bounds Write (CWE-787) vulnerability in Sunix (inferred from references). Its CVSS base score is 7.8 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 11th 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-15 (Development Process, Standards, and Tools) — 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-2024-55413 is a vulnerability in the snxppamd.sys driver included in the SUNIX Parallel Driver x64 version 10.1.0.0. It enables low-privileged users to read and write arbitrary I/O ports via specially crafted IOCTL requests. This issue, published on 2025-01-07 and associated with CWE-787, carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.8 (AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H).
A local attacker with low privileges can exploit this vulnerability to achieve privilege escalation, execute code under high privileges, and disclose sensitive information. The driver, being signed, can also bypass Microsoft's driver-signing policy, facilitating the deployment of malicious code.
Details on the vulnerability, including the affected driver, are documented in a GitHub repository at https://github.com/heyheysky/vulnerable-driver/blob/master/CVE-2024-55413/CVE-2024-55413_snxppamd.sys_README.md, with the vendor site available at https://www.sunix.com/tw/. No specific mitigation or patch details are outlined in the provided references.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-52768
Vulnerability Data
A vulnerability exits in driver snxppamd.sys in SUNIX Parallel Driver x64 - 10.1.0.0, which allows low-privileged users to read and write arbitary i/o port via specially crafted IOCTL requests . This can be exploited for privilege escalation, code execution under…
more
high privileges, and information disclosure. These signed drivers can also be used to bypass the Microsoft driver-signing policy to deploy malicious code.
- 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 evaluation (including fuzzing and bounds checks) finds out-of-bounds write flaws before deployment.
Requiring documented secure-development standards and tools can mandate bounds-checked coding practices that avoid the weakness.
Input validation can structurally reject or sanitize data that would otherwise trigger an out-of-bounds write.
Memory-protection mechanisms limit the exploitability and blast radius of a successful out-of-bounds write.
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 (static analysis, bounds checking, code review) are the primary means of preventing out-of-bounds writes.
Vulnerability scanning and recording can discover out-of-bounds write flaws so they can be remediated.
Patching or replacing vulnerable software directly eliminates known instances of this coding weakness.
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 and prevent out-of-bounds write defects.
Secure development life cycle mandates practices that prevent out-of-bounds writes.
Application security requirements can specify bounds-checking and safe memory handling.
Secure architecture and engineering principles reduce the likelihood of buffer overflows.
Secure coding directly addresses out-of-bounds writes through language choice and coding standards.
Change management can enforce review gates that catch unsafe memory operations before deployment.