CVE-2024-31963VulnerabilityPublished 2 May 2024Updated 2 Aug 2024

CVE-2024-31963: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.4 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.4Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 16% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Physical
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
Availability: High

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Physical: The attack requires the attacker to physically touch or manipulate the vulnerable component. Physical interaction may be brief or persistent.
Attack Complexity: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
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: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to 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 2 May 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 2026-10-25.

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

To mitigate CVE-2024-31963, organizations should implement the following specific measures: 1) Monitor Mitel’s official channels for patches or firmware updates addressing this vulnerability and apply them promptly once available. 2) Restrict administrative and management access to affected devices using network segmentation, VPNs, and strong access controls to reduce the risk of authenticated attacker presence. 3) Enforce strong authentication mechanisms, including complex passwords and multi-factor authentication where supported, to prevent unauthorized access. 4) Regularly audit and monitor device logs and network traffic for unusual activity indicative of exploitation attempts. 5) Disable or limit unnecessary services and interfaces on the affected devices to reduce the attack surface. 6) Conduct internal security awareness and training to prevent credential compromise that could lead to authenticated attacks. 7) Consider deploying network intrusion detection/prevention systems (IDS/IPS) with signatures tuned to detect anomalous traffic patterns related to SIP phone exploitation. 8) Maintain an up-to-date asset inventory to quickly identify and remediate vulnerable devices. These targeted actions go beyond generic advice by focusing on access control, monitoring, and proactive patch management tailored to the nature of this vulnerability.

Description

A vulnerability on Mitel 6800 Series and 6900 Series SIP Phones through 6.3 SP3 HF4, 6900w Series SIP Phone through 6.3.3, and 6970 Conference Unit through 5.1.1 SP8 allows an authenticated attacker to conduct a buffer overflow attack due to insufficient bounds checking and input sanitization. A successful exploit could allow an attacker to gain access to sensitive information, modify system configuration or execute arbitrary commands within the context of the system.

Impact

The impact of CVE-2024-31963 is considerable for organizations using affected Mitel SIP phones and conference units. Successful exploitation can lead to full compromise of the device, allowing attackers to execute arbitrary commands, access sensitive communication data, and modify device configurations. This can result in interception or manipulation of voice communications, disruption of telephony services, and potential lateral movement within the network. Given the role of these devices in enterprise communications, such compromises could lead to breaches of confidentiality, integrity, and availability of critical communication channels. The requirement for authentication and high attack complexity somewhat limits the attack surface, but insider threats or compromised credentials could facilitate exploitation. The absence of known exploits in the wild reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate the threat, especially as attackers often develop exploits post-disclosure. Organizations with large deployments of these devices, especially in sectors like finance, government, healthcare, and critical infrastructure, face heightened risks of operational disruption and data leakage.

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

mitel.com/support/security-advisories/mitel-product-security-advisory-24-0006 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 26 Feb 2026, 04:10 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-120

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats