VulnerabilityPublished 26 Feb 2024Updated 29 Oct 2024

CVE-2024-25768: OpenDMARC 1.4.2 contains a null pointer dereference

Affects OpenDMARCSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 09:15 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

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

EPSS: 0.7% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 53% 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: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 26 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
GitHublumingyindetect/OpenDMARC`pkg:github/lumingyindetect/OpenDMARC`Other threats	Affected =1.4.2	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

Until an official patch is released, organizations should consider the following specific mitigations: 1) Implement network-level filtering to restrict access to OpenDMARC services only to trusted mail servers and known IP addresses to reduce exposure to malicious inputs. 2) Monitor OpenDMARC logs and service health closely to detect crashes or unusual behavior indicative of exploitation attempts. 3) Deploy redundancy and failover mechanisms for email authentication services to maintain availability if one instance is disrupted. 4) Consider temporarily disabling OpenDMARC policy enforcement if the risk of DoS outweighs the benefits, while increasing monitoring for phishing attempts. 5) Engage with OpenDMARC maintainers and subscribe to security advisories to promptly apply patches once available. 6) Conduct internal code reviews or testing to identify if custom configurations or integrations exacerbate the vulnerability. These targeted actions go beyond generic advice by focusing on access control, monitoring, and resilience specific to OpenDMARC deployments.

Description

OpenDMARC 1.4.2 contains a null pointer dereference vulnerability in /OpenDMARC/libopendmarc/opendmarc_policy.c.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2024-25768 is a denial of service against OpenDMARC services, which can disrupt email authentication workflows. This disruption can lead to increased susceptibility to phishing and spoofing attacks if DMARC validation is unavailable, potentially allowing malicious emails to bypass domain-based protections. Organizations that depend on OpenDMARC for enforcing DMARC policies may experience degraded email security posture and operational interruptions. The vulnerability does not compromise confidentiality or integrity, so data breaches or unauthorized data modifications are not direct consequences. However, the loss of availability in email authentication services can indirectly increase risk exposure to email-based threats. The ease of remote exploitation without authentication or user interaction means attackers can trigger the DoS condition at scale, potentially targeting critical email infrastructure. This can affect enterprises, email service providers, and hosting companies that utilize OpenDMARC, impacting global email communication reliability and trust.

CWE-476NULL Pointer Dereference (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumCWE Top 25 (2025): #13OWASP Top 10 A10:2025: Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions (opens in a new tab)
The product dereferences a pointer that it expects to be valid but is NULL.
Implementation
For any pointers that could have been modified or provided from a function that can return NULL, check the pointer for NULL before use. When working with a multithreaded or otherwise asynchronous environment, ensure that proper locking APIs are used to lock before the check, and unlock when it has finished.
Requirements
Select a programming language that is not susceptible to these issues.
Implementation
Check the results of all functions that return a value and verify that the value is non-null before acting upon it.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Logging (opens in a new tab)
Error Handling (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V11.1.7 (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

github.com/LuMingYinDetect/OpenDMARC_defects/blob/main/OpenDMARC_detect_1.md (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 26 Feb 2026, 10:44 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-476

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats