VulnerabilityPublished 5 Jan 2024Updated 23 Jan 2026

CVE-2024-22087: Out-of-bounds Write

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.8 Critical.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 15:59 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

9.8Critical

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

EPSS: 1.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 75% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
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: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
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: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to 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 5 Jan 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 or the CVSS exploit maturity 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
GitHubfoxweb/pico`pkg:github/foxweb/pico`Other threats	Affected–	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-2024-22087, organizations should: 1) Identify all instances of Pico HTTP Server deployment, especially in embedded and IoT devices. 2) Conduct a thorough code audit focusing on the use of sprintf and other unsafe string functions; replace them with safer alternatives like snprintf or strlcpy that enforce buffer size limits. 3) Implement strict input validation to limit URI length and reject overly long requests before processing. 4) Apply compiler-level security features such as stack canaries, ASLR, and DEP where possible to reduce exploitation success. 5) Monitor network traffic for abnormal URI lengths or patterns indicative of exploitation attempts. 6) Engage with device vendors or developers to obtain patches or firmware updates addressing this vulnerability. 7) If patching is not immediately possible, consider network-level mitigations such as web application firewalls (WAFs) configured to block suspicious URI lengths or malformed HTTP requests. 8) Establish incident response procedures to quickly detect and respond to exploitation attempts. 9) Educate developers and security teams about secure coding practices to prevent similar vulnerabilities. 10) Maintain an inventory of affected devices and prioritize remediation based on exposure and criticality.

Description

route in main.c in Pico HTTP Server in C through f3b69a6 has an sprintf stack-based buffer overflow via a long URI, leading to remote code execution.

Impact

The impact of CVE-2024-22087 on European organizations can be severe, especially for those deploying Pico HTTP Server in embedded devices, IoT infrastructure, or lightweight web services. Successful exploitation allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code, potentially leading to full system takeover, data theft, service disruption, or use of compromised devices as footholds for lateral movement within networks. Critical infrastructure sectors such as manufacturing, energy, and telecommunications that rely on embedded HTTP servers are at heightened risk. The vulnerability threatens confidentiality by exposing sensitive data, integrity by allowing unauthorized code execution, and availability by enabling denial-of-service conditions. Given the lack of authentication and user interaction requirements, attackers can exploit this vulnerability remotely and stealthily. The potential for widespread impact is amplified in environments with limited patch management capabilities or where Pico HTTP Server is embedded in legacy or specialized devices. This could lead to operational disruptions, regulatory non-compliance, and reputational damage for affected European entities.

CWE-787Out-of-bounds Write (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #5
The product writes data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
Requirements · Language Selection
Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Operation · Build and Compilation · Environment Hardening
Use automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are offered by certain compilers or compiler extensions. Examples include: the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice, which provide various mechanisms including canary-based detection and range/index…
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.3 (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 23 Jan 2026, 19:12 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-787

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats