VulnerabilityPublished 9 Oct 2024Updated 10 Oct 2024

CVE-2024-45746: Classic Buffer Overflow

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.8 Critical.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 09:15 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

9.8Critical

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

EPSS: 0.8% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 56% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Affects: Trusted Firmware-M through 2.1.0

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 9 Oct 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 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-2024-45746, organizations should: 1) Monitor Trusted Firmware-M vendor channels for official patches or firmware updates addressing this vulnerability and apply them promptly. 2) Implement strict input validation and bounds checking on mailbox message pointers within the firmware to prevent malicious pointer dereferencing. 3) Employ hardware security features such as Memory Protection Units (MPUs) to restrict writable memory regions and prevent arbitrary memory writes. 4) Use secure boot and firmware integrity verification mechanisms to detect unauthorized firmware modifications. 5) Limit exposure of the communication interfaces that handle mailbox messages to trusted entities only, employing network segmentation and access controls. 6) Conduct thorough security testing and code audits focusing on pointer validation and memory safety in secure firmware components. 7) For devices in critical environments, consider additional runtime protections such as Control Flow Integrity (CFI) and anomaly detection to identify exploitation attempts. These measures collectively reduce the risk of exploitation and limit potential damage.

Description

An issue was discovered in Trusted Firmware-M through 2.1.0. User provided (and controlled) mailbox messages contain a pointer to a list of input arguments (in_vec) and output arguments (out_vec). These list pointers are never validated. Each argument list contains a buffer pointer and a buffer length field. After a PSA call, the length of the output arguments behind the unchecked pointer is updated in mailbox_direct_reply, regardless of the call result. This allows an attacker to write anywhere in the secure firmware, which can be used to take over the control flow, leading to remote code execution (RCE).

Impact

The impact of CVE-2024-45746 is severe for organizations deploying embedded devices and IoT systems that rely on Trusted Firmware-M for secure operations. Successful exploitation allows attackers to gain remote code execution within the secure firmware, effectively bypassing hardware-enforced security boundaries. This can lead to full compromise of device security, including unauthorized access to sensitive data, manipulation of secure operations, and persistent control over the device. Critical infrastructure, industrial control systems, medical devices, automotive systems, and consumer IoT products using affected firmware are at risk. The vulnerability undermines the trust model of the secure execution environment, potentially enabling attackers to deploy malware, disrupt device functionality, or use compromised devices as footholds for lateral movement in larger networks. Given the widespread adoption of Arm Cortex-M processors and Trusted Firmware-M in embedded systems globally, the threat surface is extensive. Organizations may face operational disruptions, data breaches, and reputational damage if this vulnerability is exploited.

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

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 26 Feb 2026, 08:17 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-120

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats