VulnerabilityPublished 21 Mar 2024Updated 7 Nov 2024

CVE-2024-29244: Classic Buffer Overflow

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 12:54 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 41% 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:L/A:N

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

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: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 21 Mar 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

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2024-29244, organizations should first monitor Shenzhen Libituo's official channels for firmware updates or patches addressing this buffer overflow. In the absence of patches, network-level controls should be implemented to restrict access to the /apply.cgi endpoint, such as firewall rules limiting inbound traffic to trusted sources only. Deploying intrusion detection or prevention systems (IDS/IPS) with signatures targeting buffer overflow attempts against this parameter can help detect exploitation attempts. Network segmentation can isolate affected devices from critical infrastructure to reduce potential lateral movement. Additionally, conducting regular security assessments and firmware integrity checks can identify unauthorized changes resulting from exploitation. Vendors and integrators should be engaged to prioritize patch development and deployment. Where feasible, consider replacing vulnerable devices with alternatives that have stronger security postures. Finally, maintaining comprehensive logging and monitoring of device behavior can facilitate early detection of anomalous activity indicative of exploitation.

Description

Shenzhen Libituo Technology Co., Ltd LBT-T300-mini v1.2.9 was discovered to contain a buffer overflow via the pin_code_3g parameter at /apply.cgi.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2024-29244 is on the integrity of affected devices, as exploitation could allow attackers to execute arbitrary code or cause system instability through a buffer overflow. While confidentiality and availability are not directly impacted, integrity loss can enable attackers to alter device configurations, inject malicious firmware, or disrupt normal operations. For organizations relying on Shenzhen Libituo LBT-T300-mini devices, particularly in network infrastructure or IoT deployments, this could lead to compromised device trustworthiness and potential lateral movement within internal networks. The lack of authentication requirement and network accessibility increases the attack surface, making remote exploitation feasible. Although no known exploits exist currently, the vulnerability could be weaponized in the future, especially if the device is widely deployed in critical environments. This risk is heightened in sectors such as telecommunications, manufacturing, or smart city infrastructure where such devices may be integral. The medium severity rating indicates a moderate threat level, but the potential for integrity compromise warrants proactive mitigation to prevent escalation or chaining with other vulnerabilities.

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

github.com/AdamRitz/lbtvul/blob/main/t300mini-2.md (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 26 Feb 2026, 11:30 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-120

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats