CVE-2024-45062VulnerabilityPublished 19 Aug 2025Updated 3 Nov 2025

CVE-2024-45062: OpenPrinting ippusbxd · Stack-based Buffer Overflow

Affects OpenPrinting ippusbxdSource 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: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 28% 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 19 Aug 2025
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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Openprintingopenprinting/ippusbxd`pkg:deb/openprinting/ippusbxd`Other threats	Affected =1.34	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2024-45062, European organizations should implement several targeted measures beyond generic advice: 1) Disable ippusbxd if IPP-over-USB printing is not required, reducing the attack surface. 2) Apply strict USB device control policies using endpoint security solutions to whitelist authorized USB devices and block untrusted or unknown devices. 3) Physically secure systems to prevent unauthorized USB device connections, especially in sensitive or public areas. 4) Monitor system logs and USB device events for unusual activity indicative of attempted exploitation. 5) Consider network segmentation to isolate printing infrastructure from critical systems. 6) Stay alert for vendor patches or updates addressing this vulnerability and apply them promptly once available. 7) Educate staff about the risks of connecting unknown USB devices. 8) Use kernel-level or OS-level protections such as stack canaries and address space layout randomization (ASLR) to reduce exploitation success. 9) Employ application whitelisting to prevent unauthorized code execution. These steps collectively reduce the likelihood and impact of exploitation.

Description

A stack based buffer overflow vulnerability is present in OpenPrinting ippusbxd 1.34. A specially configured printer that supports IPP-over-USB can cause a buffer overflow which can lead to a arbitrary code execution in a privileged service. To trigger the vulnerability, a malicious device would need to be connected to the vulnerable system over USB.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2024-45062 can be significant in environments where ippusbxd is deployed, particularly in enterprises, government agencies, and manufacturing sectors that rely on Linux-based printing infrastructure. Successful exploitation would allow an attacker with physical access to execute arbitrary code with elevated privileges, potentially leading to full system compromise. This could result in data breaches, disruption of printing services, lateral movement within networks, and deployment of persistent malware. Confidentiality is at risk as attackers could access sensitive documents or system data. Integrity and availability are also threatened due to potential system manipulation or denial of printing services. Although exploitation requires physical access, insider threats or supply chain attacks involving malicious USB devices could leverage this vulnerability. The medium severity rating suggests a moderate risk, but the privileged execution context elevates the potential damage. Organizations with lax USB device controls or those in high-security environments should consider this vulnerability a serious concern. The lack of known exploits in the wild currently reduces immediate risk but does not preclude future attacks.

CWE-121Stack-based Buffer Overflow (opens in a new tab)
Variant weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #14
A stack-based buffer overflow condition is a condition where the buffer being overwritten is allocated on the stack (i.e., is a local variable or, rarely, a parameter to a function).
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…
Architecture and Design
Use an abstraction library to abstract away risky APIs. Not a complete solution.
Implementation
Implement and perform bounds checking on input.
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

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 3 Nov 2025, 19:56 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-121

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats