VulnerabilityPublished 20 Nov 2024Updated 26 Nov 2024

CVE-2024-48986: mbed-os · Classic Buffer Overflow

Affects mbed-osSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 11:42 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 41% 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:N/I:N/A:H

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: None
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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 20 Nov 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubmbed-ce/mbed-os`pkg:github/mbed-ce/mbed-os`Other threats	Affected =6.16.0	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

Immediate mitigation should focus on applying any available patches or updates from the MBed OS maintainers once released.
Until patches are available, implement network-level controls to restrict access to devices running MBed OS, especially limiting exposure of Bluetooth or HCI interfaces to untrusted networks.
Employ intrusion detection or anomaly detection systems to monitor for unusual HCI traffic patterns that could indicate exploitation attempts.
For devices in critical environments, consider disabling or limiting HCI event handling features if feasible to reduce attack surface.
Conduct thorough testing of device firmware and software updates to ensure no regression or introduction of similar vulnerabilities.
Maintain an inventory of all devices running MBed OS 6.16.0 to prioritize remediation efforts.
Engage with device manufacturers or vendors to confirm timelines for patches and coordinate vulnerability response.
Implement robust logging and monitoring to detect crashes or instability that may indicate exploitation attempts.
Educate operational teams about the symptoms and risks of this vulnerability to enable rapid incident response.

Description

An issue was discovered in MBed OS 6.16.0. Its hci parsing software dynamically determines the length of certain hci packets by reading a byte from its header. Certain events cause a callback, the logic for which allocates a buffer (the length of which is determined by looking up the event type in a table). The subsequent write operation, however, copies the amount of data specified in the packet header, which may lead to a buffer overflow. This bug is trivial to exploit for a denial of service but is not certain to suffice to bring the system down and can generally not be exploited further because the exploitable buffer is dynamically allocated.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2024-48986 is denial of service, which can disrupt the availability of devices running MBed OS 6.16.0. This can affect embedded systems, IoT devices, and other hardware relying on MBed OS for Bluetooth or HCI communication stacks. A successful exploit can cause system crashes or hangs, leading to operational downtime. Although the vulnerability does not appear to allow code execution or data compromise, the loss of availability can be critical in environments where continuous operation is essential, such as industrial control systems, medical devices, or automotive systems. The ease of exploitation (no authentication or user interaction required) increases the risk of remote attacks, especially in exposed network environments. Organizations deploying MBed OS in critical infrastructure or consumer devices may face service interruptions, customer dissatisfaction, and potential safety risks if devices become unresponsive. The lack of known exploits in the wild currently limits immediate widespread impact, but the vulnerability’s characteristics warrant proactive mitigation.

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 27 Feb 2026, 21:50 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-120

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats