CVE-2024-8061
Aimstack Aim 3.23.0
Raw vector
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HSummary
CVE-2024-8061 is a high-severity Synchronous Access of Remote Resource without Timeout (CWE-1088) vulnerability in Aimstack Aim. Its CVSS base score is 7.5 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Endpoint Denial of Service (T1499); ranked at the 37th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); 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 SC-10 (Network Disconnect) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-6926
Vulnerability Data
In version 3.23.0 of aimhubio/aim, certain methods that request data from external servers do not have set timeouts, causing the server to wait indefinitely for a response. This can lead to a denial of service, as the tracking server does…
more
not respond to other requests while waiting. The issue arises in the client used by the `aim` tracking server to communicate with external resources, specifically in the `_run_read_instructions` method and similar calls without timeouts.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
SC-10 requires terminating network connections after a defined period, directly enforcing timeouts on remote synchronous calls.
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.
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 can detect missing timeouts, providing partial coverage of both the weakness and the control.
Redundancy and failover mechanisms can mitigate the impact of a hung synchronous call but do not enforce timeouts.
Network security controls can include connection-timeout policies, yet the weakness is a coding-level omission.
Secure SDLC practices require timeout handling for external calls, directly addressing the missing timeout.
Application security requirements typically mandate timeout settings for remote resource access.
Secure architecture principles encourage defensive coding patterns such as timeouts, but do not prescribe them explicitly.