CVE-2024-0901: SEGV and out of bounds memory read from malicious packet
Noroxi assessment
Priority: Monitor (action score 36/100)
- The sources we track (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, Metasploit, Nuclei, GitHub) show no public exploit code or exploitation in the wild.
- Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days: 0.69% (FIRST EPSS); higher than 53.1% of all records.
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it. No account or password is required. No user action is required. No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
- Fixed version: Azure Linux 3.0 ARM 10.11.6-3; Azure Linux 3.0 x64 10.11.6-3; CBL Mariner 2.0 ARM 10.6.20-1.
Low priority for now. Upgrade to Azure Linux 3.0 ARM 10.11.6-3; Azure Linux 3.0 x64 10.11.6-3; CBL Mariner 2.0 ARM 10.6.20-1 or later.
Generated automatically from the record's data: CVSS (NVD and CNA), CISA KEV and SSVC, FIRST EPSS, exploit sources, fixed versions. How we calculate it
Primary sources: NVD · CVE.org · FIRST EPSS
Remotely executed SEGV and out of bounds read allows malicious packet sender to crash or cause an out of bounds read via sending a malformed packet with the correct length.
- Published
- Mar 25, 2024
- Updated
- Jun 17, 2026
- EPSS
- 0.6% · 53th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-129
Report tools
Action score
36
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 36 / 40 · 9.1 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 0 / 30 · 0.6%
CISA SSVC decision
- Exploitation
- proof of concept
- Automatable
- no
- Technical impact
- partial
Vulnrichment: CISA's decision-tree inputs.
CNA vs NVD score
- NVD
- 9.1
- CNA · wolfSSL
- 7.5
- 1.6 point gap
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:H
The score given by the assigning authority versus NVD’s independent score. A gap means the severity is contested.
Get told when this record changes
- Not in KEV: no record of exploitation in the wild
- No public exploit code on record
- A fix has been released
If any of these changes, we'll tell you in the daily email digest.
Running WordPress? Scan your site free with WP Lens
Noroxi analysis
What does it mean in your environment?
The assessment above is generated automatically from the record's data; it doesn't know your environment. Our team verifies on your systems whether this vulnerability is actually exploitable and which mitigation is enough.
We use this product, ask for helpAffected systems
Is your version affected?
Pick the product and type the version you run. It's compared with this record's version ranges in your browser; the version isn't sent anywhere.
| Vendor | Product | CPE |
|---|---|---|
| wolfssl | wolfssl | cpe:2.3:a:wolfssl:wolfssl |
Check your server's TLS configuration
The wolfSSL version can't be seen from outside; the free SSL checker tests your certificate, enabled TLS versions and weak ciphers. Confirm the version on your server with the package manager.
Run the SSL checkAffected versions
NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.
- wolfssl wolfssl3.12.2 and later · up to 5.6.6 inclusive
Versions reported by the vendor
Affected version ranges reported by the assigning authority (wolfSSL). Independent of NVD's CPE analysis and usually ahead of it.
wolfSSL wolfSSL
- 3.12.2 and later · up to and including 5.6.6affected · release bundle
Package-level exposure
OSV and GitHub Advisory data: ecosystem, package and range. SBOM matching uses this table.
| Ecosystem | Package | Affected range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alpine:v3.20 | wolfssl | from 3.12.2 · before 5.7.0-r0 | 5.7.0-r0 |
| Debian:12 | wolfssl | from 0 | — |
| Debian:13 | wolfssl | before 5.7.0-0.3 | 5.7.0-0.3 |
Same product
wolfssl: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2017-13099wolfSSL Bleichenbacher/ROBOT60This week
- CVE-2019-11873wolfSSL 4.0.0 has a Buffer Overflow in DoPreSharedKeys in tls13.c when a current identity size is greater than a client identity size.42Plan
- CVE-2017-2800A specially crafted x509 certificate can cause a single out of bounds byte overwrite in wolfSSL through 3.10.2 resulting in potential certif42Plan
Published before and after this one in the same product
- ← EarlierCVE-2023-6937Feb 15, 2024 · Improper (D)TLS key boundary enforcement21Monitor
- ← EarlierCVE-2023-6936Feb 20, 2024 · Heap-buffer over-read with WOLFSSL_CALLBACKS36Monitor
- Later →CVE-2024-1544Aug 27, 2024 · ECDSA nonce bias caused by truncation19Monitor
Remediation
Which version to upgrade to
Fix versions compiled from the vendor, package registries and Microsoft. Verify the vendor's note before upgrading.
| Product / package | Fixed version | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Azure Linux 3.0 ARM | 10.11.6-3 · mariadb | Microsoft (MSRC) |
| Azure Linux 3.0 x64 | 10.11.6-3 · mariadb | Microsoft (MSRC) |
| CBL Mariner 2.0 ARM | 10.6.20-1 · mariadb | Microsoft (MSRC) |
| CBL Mariner 2.0 x64 | 10.6.20-1 · mariadb | Microsoft (MSRC) |
| alpine:wolfssl | 5.7.0-r0 · Alpine:v3.20 | Package registry (OSV) |
| debian:wolfssl | 5.7.0-0.3 · Debian:13 | Package registry (OSV) |
Exploit status
No known public exploit
No public exploit has been observed yet. That doesn't mean you're safe, only that the bar is a little higher.
Research context
For pentesters and researchers: attack profile, score disagreement, timeline, patch commits, credits, variant and chain candidates, bug bounty scope. All derived from existing data; no exploit code.
Timeline
From publication to today: proof of concept, Metasploit module, CISA KEV and fix record. Dates are as reported by the sources.
No dated events beyond publication.
No history yet (it accumulates with the daily EPSS job).
Patch and commit links
Commit, PR and diff links among the references. A starting point for patch-diffing and variant hunting; fixes, not exploits.
Credits
All researchersFinders, reporters and analysts named in the CNA record. Click a name for that researcher’s other records.
- Jiamin Yufinder
Variant candidates
Same product, same weakness class, within 18 months. If the patch missed the root cause, the sibling bug is here.
No nightly-computed relations.
Chain candidates
An authentication bypass and a privilege-requiring bug in the same product, published close together: combined they may become an unauthenticated path.
—
Bug bounty scope
No known public program.
Source: bounty-targets-data (public HackerOne, Bugcrowd, Intigriti, YesWeHack listings).
Technical details
Attack conditions
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it.
- No account or password is required.
- No user action is required.
- No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
If successful
- Confidentiality
- high · data can be read
- Integrity
- none
- Availability
- high · the service can be disrupted
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality impact
- High
- Integrity impact
- None
- Availability impact
- High
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-129 · Improper Validation of Array IndexCVSS vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:H
nvd-primary
Attack context
MITRE CAPEC attack patterns and ATT&CK techniques for this weakness class (CWE). A starting point for detection rules and threat hunting.
Attack patterns (CAPEC)
ATT&CK techniques
—
Change log
- Fix✗ → ✓
For records you follow, these changes also arrive as notifications. →
References
Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.