VulnerabilityPublished 6 Feb 2024Updated 4 Nov 2025

CVE-2024-0911: indent · Heap-based Buffer Overflow

Affects indentSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.5 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 09:15 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.5Medium

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 23% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: None
Availability: High

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Local: The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Either: the attacker exploits the vulnerability by accessing the target system locally (e.g., keyboard, console), or remotely (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., tricking a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 6 Feb 2024
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 26 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Fedorafedora/indent`pkg:rpm/fedora/indent`Other threats	Affected =2.2.13	Fixed in–

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2024-0911, organizations should avoid processing untrusted or unauthenticated files with indent 2.2.13 until a patch is available. Implement strict input validation and file origin verification in development workflows to reduce the risk of malicious files being processed. Use sandboxing or containerization to isolate the indent process, limiting the impact of potential crashes. Monitor software development environments for abnormal terminations of indent and investigate suspicious files. Stay informed about updates from the indent maintainers or distribution vendors and apply patches promptly once released. Consider using alternative code formatting tools that are not affected by this vulnerability if immediate mitigation is required. Educate developers and users about the risks of processing untrusted files and encourage cautious handling of code formatting utilities.

Description

A flaw was found in indent, a program for formatting C code. This issue may allow an attacker to trick a user into processing a specially crafted file to trigger a heap-based buffer overflow, causing the application to crash.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2024-0911 is denial of service through application crashes when processing maliciously crafted files with indent 2.2.13. This can disrupt software development processes, automated build pipelines, and continuous integration systems that rely on indent for code formatting. While the vulnerability does not compromise confidentiality or integrity, the availability impact can delay development cycles and increase operational costs. Organizations relying heavily on open-source tools and automated workflows may experience interruptions. Since exploitation requires user interaction and local access, the risk is somewhat limited to insider threats or social engineering scenarios. No evidence suggests remote exploitation or privilege escalation, reducing the overall threat severity. However, environments with high volumes of untrusted code inputs or shared development resources could be more vulnerable to disruption.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…