CVE-2024-24479VulnerabilityPublished 21 Feb 2024Updated 4 Nov 2025

CVE-2024-24479: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 08:30 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

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

EPSS: 1.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 70% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Affects: Wireshark before 4.2.0

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: None
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: 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 21 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

AI-suggested

1. Verify the exact Wireshark version deployed within the organization and confirm whether it is prior to 4.2.0 or a custom build that might be affected. 2. Follow official Wireshark communications closely for any updates or patches related to this CVE, despite the vendor's current dispute. 3. Limit exposure by restricting network access to Wireshark instances, especially those used for remote capture or analysis, to trusted and authenticated users only. 4. Employ network segmentation to isolate monitoring tools from untrusted networks to reduce attack surface. 5. Monitor network traffic and system logs for unusual crashes or behavior in Wireshark processes that could indicate exploitation attempts. 6. Consider deploying host-based intrusion detection systems (HIDS) to detect anomalous process terminations or memory corruption events. 7. If possible, use alternative or updated network analysis tools that are confirmed not vulnerable until the issue is resolved. 8. Educate security teams about the potential for denial of service via malformed packets targeting Wireshark to improve incident response readiness. 9. Maintain regular backups and ensure rapid recovery procedures for monitoring infrastructure to minimize downtime impact.

Description

A Buffer Overflow in Wireshark before 4.2.0 allows a remote attacker to cause a denial of service via the wsutil/to_str.c, and format_fractional_part_nsecs components. NOTE: this is disputed by the vendor because neither release 4.2.0 nor any other release was affected.

Impact

If exploited, this vulnerability could cause Wireshark to crash, resulting in denial of service conditions that disrupt network monitoring and analysis activities. For European organizations, especially those relying heavily on Wireshark for security monitoring, incident response, or network troubleshooting, such disruptions could delay detection of other threats and impact operational continuity. Critical infrastructure operators, financial institutions, and large enterprises with complex network environments may experience increased risk due to reliance on continuous network visibility. Although no data confidentiality or integrity impact is indicated, the availability impact alone can have cascading effects on security posture. The absence of known exploits reduces immediate risk, but the potential for remote exploitation without authentication means attackers could leverage this vulnerability in targeted attacks or automated scanning campaigns. The dispute by the vendor introduces uncertainty, but organizations should not dismiss the risk, particularly if they use older or custom Wireshark builds. The impact is primarily on availability, with no direct compromise of data or system integrity reported.

CWE-120Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input ('Classic Buffer Overflow') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #11
The product copies an input buffer to an output buffer without verifying that the size of the input buffer is less than the size of the output 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
Docker Security (opens in a new tab)
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V5.4.1 (opens in a new tab)
V14.1.2 (opens in a new tab)
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Buffer Overflow via Environment Variables (opens in a new tab)
Overflow Buffers (opens in a new tab)
Client-side Injection-induced Buffer Overflow (opens in a new tab)
Filter Failure through Buffer Overflow (opens in a new tab)
MIME Conversion (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

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 4 Nov 2025, 19:10 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-120

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats