CVE-2024-7217
Memory Safety in Totolink Ca300-Poe Firmware 6.2c.884
Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:XCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2024-7217 is a medium-severity Classic Buffer Overflow (CWE-120) vulnerability in Totolink Ca300-Poe Firmware. Its CVSS base score is 5.3 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked in the top 7% 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 SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — 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-2024-7217 is a buffer overflow vulnerability in the loginauth function within the file /cgi-bin/cstecgi.cgi on TOTOLINK CA300-PoE firmware version 6.2c.884. The issue stems from improper handling of the password argument and is tracked as CWE-120. It was publicly disclosed on 2024-07-30 with a CVSS 4.0 score of 5.3.
An authenticated remote attacker can supply a crafted password value to trigger the overflow. Successful exploitation may allow limited manipulation of confidentiality, integrity, and availability on the affected device, and a proof-of-concept has already been published.
The vendor was notified prior to disclosure but provided no response or patch. Public references consist of exploit details hosted on GitHub and entries in the VulDB database; no official mitigation guidance is available. The associated EPSS score has remained flat at 0.0848 with no material increase since publication.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-48184
Vulnerability Data
A vulnerability was found in TOTOLINK CA300-PoE 6.2c.884. It has been declared as critical. This vulnerability affects the function loginauth of the file /cgi-bin/cstecgi.cgi. The manipulation of the argument password leads to buffer overflow. The attack can be initiated remotely.…
more
The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The identifier of this vulnerability is VDB-272788. NOTE: The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V5.2.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and analysis can find missing size checks before deployment.
Input validation directly enforces size checks before buffer copies.
Engineering principles require bounds checking and safe buffer handling in design.
Memory protection limits the impact of an overflow once it occurs.
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 directly enforce bounds checking and input validation that prevent classic buffer overflows.
Vulnerability identification processes such as code review or scanning detect classic buffer overflows before exploitation.
Routine patching replaces vulnerable code containing unchecked buffer copies with corrected versions.
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.
Secure coding directly requires bounds-checked memory operations, addressing the root cause of CWE-120.
Security testing in development and acceptance can detect buffer overflows through fuzzing and static analysis, though it does not prevent them at the source.
Secure development life cycle mandates processes that can include input validation and bounds checking to prevent buffer overflows.
Application security requirements can specify input-size validation and safe buffer handling to mitigate classic buffer overflows.
Secure system architecture and engineering principles promote defensive coding patterns that reduce the likelihood of unchecked buffer copies.