CVE-2024-37151VulnerabilityPublished 11 Jul 2024Updated 3 Nov 2025

CVE-2024-37151: OISF suricata · Unchecked Error Condition

Affects OISF suricataSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium : upgrade to 7.0.6 or 6.0.20 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.6% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 49% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 7.0.6, 6.0.20

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 11 Jul 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 2026-10-26.

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

Upgrade oisf/suricata to 7.0.6 or 6.0.20.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHuboisf/suricata`pkg:github/oisf/suricata`Other threats	Affected <6.0.20 <7.0.6	Fixed in 6.0.20 7.0.6

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

AI-suggested

1. Upgrade Suricata installations to version 6.0.20 or 7.0.6 immediately to apply the official patch addressing the fragmentation handling flaw. 2. When using the af-packet capture method, enable the 'defrag' option to enhance packet reassembly robustness and reduce the attack surface. 3. Review and audit network traffic logs for signs of fragmented packet anomalies or suspicious IP ID reuse patterns that could indicate attempted exploitation. 4. Implement network segmentation and strict ingress/egress filtering to limit exposure to untrusted networks where attackers might exploit fragmentation. 5. Integrate Suricata updates into regular patch management and vulnerability scanning processes to ensure timely remediation of future issues. 6. Consider deploying complementary detection tools that can identify evasion techniques involving fragmented packets. 7. Educate network security teams about this vulnerability to improve monitoring and incident response readiness.

Description

Suricata is a network Intrusion Detection System, Intrusion Prevention System and Network Security Monitoring engine. Mishandling of multiple fragmented packets using the same IP ID value can lead to packet reassembly failure, which can lead to policy bypass. Upgrade to 7.0.6 or 6.0.20. When using af-packet, enable `defrag` to reduce the scope of the problem.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a risk to the integrity of network security monitoring and intrusion prevention systems. Suricata is commonly deployed in enterprise, government, and critical infrastructure networks across Europe to detect and block malicious traffic. Exploitation of this vulnerability could allow attackers to bypass detection mechanisms, enabling stealthy intrusion attempts, data exfiltration, or lateral movement within networks. This undermines the confidentiality and integrity of network communications and security policies. Organizations relying on Suricata for compliance with regulatory frameworks such as GDPR or NIS Directive may face increased risk of undetected breaches and potential non-compliance. The medium CVSS score reflects that while the vulnerability does not directly impact availability or confidentiality, the integrity of security controls is compromised. Given the widespread use of Suricata in European sectors including finance, telecommunications, and government, the impact could be significant if left unpatched.

CWE-754Improper Check for Unusual or Exceptional Conditions (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumOWASP Top 10 A10:2025: Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions (opens in a new tab)
The product does not check or incorrectly checks for unusual or exceptional conditions that are not expected to occur frequently during day to day operation of the product.
Requirements · Language Selection
Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Implementation
Check the results of all functions that return a value and verify that the value is expected.
Implementation
If using exception handling, catch and throw specific exceptions instead of overly-general exceptions (CWE-396, CWE-397). Catch and handle exceptions as locally as possible so that exceptions do not propagate too far up the call stack (CWE-705). Avoid unchecked or uncaught exceptions where feasible (CWE-248).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Logging (opens in a new tab)
Error Handling (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V11.1.7 (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 3 Nov 2025, 19:54 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-754

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats