CVE-2024-41433VulnerabilityPublished 3 Sep 2024Updated 1 Oct 2024

CVE-2024-41433: tidb · n/a

Affects tidbSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.8 Critical.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

9.8Critical

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

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 46% 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:H

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
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: 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: 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 3 Sep 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubpingcap/tidb`pkg:github/pingcap/tidb`Other threats	Affected =8.1.0	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

1. Monitor official PingCAP channels closely for patches or updates addressing CVE-2024-41433 and apply them immediately upon release. 2. Until a patch is available, implement strict input validation and sanitization on all queries submitted to TiDB to prevent malformed or overly complex queries that could trigger the buffer overflow. 3. Restrict access to TiDB instances by limiting network exposure, using firewalls, VPNs, or private networks to reduce the attack surface. 4. Employ query whitelisting or rate limiting to detect and block suspicious or unusually complex queries that may exploit this vulnerability. 5. Enable detailed logging and monitoring of database query activity to identify anomalous behavior indicative of exploitation attempts. 6. Consider deploying Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) or database activity monitoring tools capable of detecting and blocking exploit patterns. 7. Conduct internal security assessments and penetration testing focused on TiDB query handling to identify potential exploitation vectors. 8. Educate database administrators and developers about this vulnerability to ensure awareness and prompt response. 9. If feasible, isolate critical TiDB workloads or use alternative database versions or products until the vulnerability is resolved. 10. Maintain regular backups and disaster recovery plans to minimize operational impact in case of successful exploitation.

Description

PingCAP TiDB v8.1.0 was discovered to contain a buffer overflow via the component expression.ExplainExpressionList. This vulnerability allows attackers to cause a Denial of Service (DoS) via a crafted input. NOTE: PingCAP maintains that the actual reproduction of this issue did not cause the security impact of service interruption to other users. They argue that this is a complex query bug and not a DoS vulnerability.

Impact

The impact of CVE-2024-41433 is potentially severe for organizations relying on PingCAP TiDB 8.1.0. Successful exploitation can lead to Denial of Service, causing database crashes and service interruptions, which can disrupt business operations, degrade user experience, and impact revenue. Given the vulnerability affects confidentiality, integrity, and availability, there is a risk of data corruption or leakage if the buffer overflow is leveraged beyond DoS, although no such exploitation is confirmed. The ease of remote exploitation without authentication increases the threat level, making it accessible to a wide range of attackers, including opportunistic threat actors. Organizations running critical applications on TiDB may face operational downtime, loss of trust, and compliance issues if the vulnerability is exploited. The absence of known exploits in the wild currently limits immediate widespread impact, but the critical CVSS score and nature of the vulnerability warrant proactive mitigation. The vulnerability could also be leveraged as part of a multi-stage attack chain, increasing its strategic risk.

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

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 28 Feb 2026, 05:42 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-120

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats