VulnerabilityPublished 3 Apr 2024Updated 2 Aug 2024

CVE-2024-30166: mbedtls · Stack-based Buffer Overflow

Affects mbedtlsSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.1 Critical.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 12:54 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

9.1Critical

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

EPSS: 0.7% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 54% 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:N/A:H

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
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: 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: 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 3 Apr 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
GitHubmbed-tls/mbedtls`pkg:github/mbed-tls/mbedtls`Other threats	Affected =3.3.0 =3.6.0	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

Upgrade all affected Mbed TLS instances to version 3.6.0 or later, where the vulnerability is patched.
For environments where immediate upgrade is not feasible, implement network-level filtering to block malformed TLS ClientHello messages, particularly those mimicking TLS 3.1 versions, using intrusion prevention systems or firewalls with deep packet inspection capabilities.
Deploy Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) or TLS proxies capable of detecting and rejecting anomalous TLS handshake messages.
Monitor server logs and network traffic for unusual TLS handshake failures or crashes that may indicate exploitation attempts.
Conduct thorough testing of TLS 1.3 server implementations to ensure they correctly handle ClientHello messages and do not exhibit buffer over-read behavior.
Educate development and security teams about the risks of improper TLS message parsing and the importance of timely patching.
Review and harden embedded and IoT device firmware that uses Mbed TLS to ensure they are updated or mitigated against this vulnerability.
Consider implementing rate limiting on TLS handshake attempts to reduce the risk of denial of service attacks exploiting this flaw.

Description

In Mbed TLS 3.3.0 through 3.5.2 before 3.6.0, a malicious client can cause information disclosure or a denial of service because of a stack buffer over-read (of less than 256 bytes) in a TLS 1.3 server via a TLS 3.1 ClientHello.

Impact

The vulnerability poses a significant risk to organizations worldwide by enabling attackers to remotely extract sensitive memory contents from TLS 1.3 servers using vulnerable Mbed TLS versions. This information disclosure can lead to leakage of cryptographic material, session keys, or other confidential data, undermining the confidentiality of secure communications. Furthermore, the denial of service aspect can disrupt critical services by crashing servers, impacting availability and potentially causing operational downtime. Given Mbed TLS's extensive use in embedded systems, IoT devices, and network infrastructure, the scope of affected systems is broad, including industrial control systems, telecommunications equipment, and consumer devices. Exploitation requires no authentication or user interaction, increasing the likelihood of automated attacks and scanning. The combined impact on confidentiality and availability, coupled with ease of exploitation, makes this vulnerability a critical threat to organizations relying on affected TLS implementations for secure communications. Failure to address this issue could result in data breaches, service outages, and erosion of trust in affected services.

CWE-121Stack-based Buffer Overflow (opens in a new tab)
Variant weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #14
A stack-based buffer overflow condition is a condition where the buffer being overwritten is allocated on the stack (i.e., is a local variable or, rarely, a parameter to a function).
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…
Architecture and Design
Use an abstraction library to abstract away risky APIs. Not a complete solution.
Implementation
Implement and perform bounds checking on input.
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 26 Feb 2026, 15:40 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-121

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats