VulnerabilityPublished 6 Dec 2024Updated 11 Dec 2024

CVE-2024-38924: Use After Free

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.1 Critical.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

9.1Critical

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

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 45% 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:H/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
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: 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: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 6 Dec 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

AI-suggested

Immediately restrict network access to ROS2 and Nav2 nodes, especially the nav2_amcl process, using firewalls or network segmentation to prevent unauthorized remote requests.
Implement strict access controls and authentication mechanisms around dynamic parameter updates, ensuring only trusted entities can modify parameters like `/amcl laser_model_type`.
Monitor ROS2 network traffic for anomalous parameter change requests or unexpected remote commands targeting nav2_amcl.
Apply any available patches or updates from Open Robotics as soon as they are released; maintain close communication with ROS2 maintainers for vulnerability disclosures.
Conduct thorough code audits and fuzz testing on dynamic parameter handling in ROS2 to identify and remediate similar memory management issues proactively.
Use containerization or sandboxing techniques to isolate ROS2 nodes, limiting the impact of potential exploitation.
Educate robotics engineers and operators on secure configuration and network hygiene to reduce exposure.
Develop incident response plans specifically addressing robotic system compromises to enable rapid containment and recovery.

Description

Open Robotics Robotic Operating System 2 (ROS2) and Nav2 humble versions were discovered to contain a use-after-free via the nav2_amcl process. This vulnerability is triggered via remotely sending a request to change the value of dynamic-parameter`/amcl laser_model_type` .

Impact

The exploitation of CVE-2024-38924 could have severe consequences for organizations using ROS2 and Nav2 in robotic systems. Attackers can remotely execute arbitrary code or manipulate navigation parameters, potentially causing robots to behave unpredictably or dangerously. This threatens operational safety, especially in industrial automation, autonomous vehicles, and research environments. Confidentiality breaches could expose sensitive operational data or intellectual property. Integrity violations may lead to corrupted navigation data or control commands, undermining trust in robotic systems. While availability impact is not direct, the resulting system instability or forced shutdowns to mitigate risks could disrupt critical operations. The vulnerability's ease of exploitation without authentication increases the risk of widespread attacks, particularly in environments where ROS2 nodes are exposed to untrusted networks. Organizations could face financial losses, reputational damage, and safety incidents if this vulnerability is exploited.

CWE-416Use After Free (opens in a new tab)
Variant weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #7
The product reuses or references memory after it has been freed. At some point afterward, the memory may be allocated again and saved in another pointer, while the original pointer references a location somewhere within the new allocation. Any operations using the original pointer are no longer valid because the memory "belongs" to the code that operates on the new pointer.
Architecture and Design · Language Selection
Choose a language that provides automatic memory management.
Implementation · Attack Surface Reduction
When freeing pointers, be sure to set them to NULL once they are freed. However, the utilization of multiple or complex data structures may lower the usefulness of this strategy.
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

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 28 Feb 2026, 04:07 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-416

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats