CVE-2024-34489VulnerabilityPublished 5 May 2024Updated 2 Aug 2024

CVE-2024-34489: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

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

EPSS: 0.6% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 52% 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 5 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-2024-34489, organizations should first monitor for updates or patches from the Faucet SDN Ryu project and apply them promptly once available. In the absence of an official patch, network administrators can implement input validation and filtering at the network perimeter to block malformed OFPHello messages with invalid length fields. Deploying intrusion detection or prevention systems (IDS/IPS) capable of recognizing anomalous OpenFlow messages can help detect and block exploit attempts. Network segmentation and limiting access to the SDN controller to trusted management hosts reduce the attack surface. Additionally, implementing rate limiting on control plane traffic can mitigate the impact of flooding attacks. Regularly auditing and testing the SDN controller environment for robustness against malformed packets is recommended. Finally, maintaining comprehensive logging and alerting on controller anomalies will aid in early detection of exploitation attempts.

Description

OFPHello in parser.py in Faucet SDN Ryu 4.34 allows attackers to cause a denial of service (infinite loop) via length=0.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2024-34489 is a denial of service condition on the Faucet SDN Ryu controller, which can cause network management and control functions to become unavailable. This disruption can lead to network outages, degraded performance, or loss of centralized control in SDN environments. Organizations relying on Faucet SDN for critical infrastructure, data centers, or enterprise networks may experience significant operational interruptions. The inability to process legitimate control messages can hinder traffic flow management, security policy enforcement, and network monitoring. While confidentiality and integrity are not directly affected, the loss of availability can indirectly impact business continuity and service level agreements. The ease of exploitation and lack of required privileges increase the risk of automated or widespread attacks, especially in environments exposed to untrusted networks.

References

github.com/faucetsdn/ryu/issues/195 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 26 Feb 2026, 04:46 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-835

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats