VulnerabilityPublished 17 Nov 2024Updated 18 Nov 2024

CVE-2024-52876: Out-of-bounds Read

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High · fixed in 1.1.8 : patch affected systems soon.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 09:15 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 40% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.1.8

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: None
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: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 17 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 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 this vulnerability, affected users should immediately update the Drone Go2 mobile application to version 1.1.8 or later once available, as this likely contains the necessary firmware fixes. Until patches are deployed, operators should restrict physical and wireless access to drones, especially disabling Bluetooth broadcast mode when not in use. Implementing Bluetooth signal range limitations and using secure pairing methods can reduce exposure. Network-level controls such as Bluetooth device whitelisting and monitoring for abnormal GATT read requests can help detect and prevent exploitation attempts. Manufacturers should consider firmware hardening to validate all GATT operations and implement authentication or authorization checks before executing critical commands like power off. Additionally, operators should conduct risk assessments for drone deployments in sensitive environments and develop contingency plans for potential drone shutdowns.

Description

Holy Stone Remote ID Module HSRID01, firmware distributed with the Drone Go2 mobile application before 1.1.8, allows unauthenticated "remote power off" actions (in broadcast mode) via multiple read operations on the ASTM Remote ID (0xFFFA) GATT.

Impact

The primary impact of this vulnerability is the unauthorized remote shutdown of affected drones, which can lead to loss of control, mission failure, or physical damage if the drone crashes. For commercial operators, this could disrupt delivery services, aerial inspections, or agricultural monitoring. Recreational users may experience loss of expensive equipment. In critical infrastructure or public safety contexts, such as emergency response or surveillance, the ability to remotely power off drones could be exploited to disable monitoring capabilities or interfere with operations. The confidentiality impact is rated high, possibly due to exposure of Remote ID information during the attack, which could aid further reconnaissance or attacks. Although availability and integrity are not directly compromised by data manipulation, the forced shutdown effectively denies service. The ease of exploitation without authentication or user interaction increases the threat level, potentially enabling attackers in proximity to the drone to cause disruption with minimal effort.

CWE-125Out-of-bounds Read (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessCWE Top 25 (2025): #8
The product reads data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
Architecture and Design · Language Selection
Use a language that provides appropriate memory abstractions.
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)
Attack patterns
Overread Buffers (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

coalfire.com/the-coalfire-blog/holy-stone-remote-id-vulnerability-disclosure (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 28 Feb 2026, 03:07 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-125

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats