Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/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-2024-8250 is a high-severity Expired Pointer Dereference (CWE-825) vulnerability in Wireshark Wireshark. 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 24th 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 SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SA-15 (Development Process, Standards, and Tools) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-49046
Vulnerability Data
NTLMSSP dissector crash in Wireshark 4.2.0 to 4.0.6 and 4.0.0 to 4.0.16 allows denial of service via packet injection or crafted capture file
- 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, static analysis, and dynamic memory checkers) directly finds expired-pointer dereferences before deployment.
Requiring documented secure-development standards and tools can mandate bounds-checked coding practices that avoid the weakness.
Secure engineering principles applied during design and implementation can mandate memory-safe allocation, ownership, and deallocation patterns that structurally avoid use of expired pointers.
Process isolation confines the effects of a use-after-free within a single address space, reducing cross-process impact.
Input validation can structurally reject or sanitize data that would otherwise trigger an out-of-bounds write.
Memory-protection mechanisms limit the blast radius when an expired pointer is dereferenced, even though they do not stop the coding flaw itself.
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 prevent coding errors such as use-after-free while one CWE contributes only modestly to the full control.
Lifecycle management includes secure development and maintenance phases that reduce memory-safety defects.
Vulnerability identification processes can discover use-after-free flaws via scanning or analysis.
Routine patching and replacement can eliminate known instances of expired-pointer bugs.
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 use-after-free issues, but removing this weakness alone does not fulfill the testing control.
Secure development lifecycle practices can include pointer lifetime and memory-management rules that reduce expired-pointer dereferences.
Application security requirements may mandate safe memory handling, but eliminating this single weakness does not satisfy the broader requirement.
Secure architecture and engineering principles can prescribe memory-safety patterns, yet fixing only this weakness does not achieve the control.
Secure coding standards directly address pointer lifetime and deallocation discipline, substantially mitigating expired-pointer dereference.
Change-management processes can require re-validation of memory safety after modifications, indirectly reducing the weakness.