VulnerabilityPublished 7 Apr 2024Updated 4 Nov 2025

CVE-2024-31948: frr · Improper Validation of Specified Type of Input

Affects frrSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.8% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 57% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
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: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
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 7 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
GitHubfrrouting/frr`pkg:github/frrouting/frr`Other threats	Affected <=9.1	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

Monitor FRRouting project communications and apply official patches promptly once released to address CVE-2024-31948.
Implement strict ingress filtering and validation of BGP UPDATE packets at network boundaries to detect and block malformed Prefix SID attributes.
Use BGP session authentication mechanisms such as TCP MD5 or TCP-AO to restrict BGP peer access to trusted entities only.
Deploy network anomaly detection systems capable of identifying unusual BGP UPDATE patterns indicative of malformed attributes.
Maintain redundancy in routing infrastructure to minimize impact of bgpd daemon crashes, including automated failover and route flap dampening.
Conduct regular security audits and penetration tests focusing on routing protocol robustness.
Prepare incident response plans for rapid recovery from bgpd crashes, including automated daemon restarts and traffic rerouting.
Limit network access to BGP peers and restrict administrative privileges to reduce attack surface. These measures go beyond generic advice by focusing on protocol-specific filtering, authentication, and operational resilience tailored to FRR and BGP environments.

Description

In FRRouting (FRR) through 9.1, an attacker using a malformed Prefix SID attribute in a BGP UPDATE packet can cause the bgpd daemon to crash.

Impact

For European organizations, especially ISPs, telecom operators, and large enterprises relying on FRRouting for BGP routing, this vulnerability poses a risk of network instability or outages due to bgpd daemon crashes. Disruption of BGP routing can lead to loss of connectivity, routing loops, or traffic blackholing, impacting business operations and service availability. Critical infrastructure providers and data centers using FRR could experience degraded network performance or downtime, affecting end users and dependent services. Although the vulnerability does not compromise confidentiality or integrity, the availability impact can be significant, especially in environments where FRR is a core routing component. The lack of known exploits reduces immediate risk, but the ease of triggering a crash with low privileges means attackers with network access could leverage this for denial of service attacks. European organizations with interconnected networks or peering arrangements using FRR should be vigilant, as BGP disruptions can cascade across networks.

CWE-1287Improper Validation of Specified Type of Input (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product receives input that is expected to be of a certain type, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input is actually of the expected type.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
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 4 Nov 2025, 17:09 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-1287

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats