CVE Intelligence
Skip to main content
MEDIUMpublic exploit

CVE-2024-11616

CVE-2024-11616 — Double-fetch heap overflow

Netskope was made aware of a security vulnerability in Netskope Endpoint DLP’s Content Control Driver where a double-fetch issue leads to heap overflow. The vulnerability arises from the fact that the NumberOfBytes argument to ExAllocatePoolWithTag, and the Length argument for RtlCopyMemory, both independently dereference their value from the user supplied input buffer inside the EpdlpSetUsbAction function, known as a double-fetch. If this length value grows to a higher value in between these two calls, it will result in the RtlCopyMemory call copying user-supplied memory contents outside the range of the allocated buffer, resulting in a heap overflow. A malicious attacker will need admin privileges to exploit the issue. This issue affects Endpoint DLP version below R119.

Published Updated Sources: cvelistV5, Netskope

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the scoring sources call it.

Exploitation

Exploit code

public exploit, none observed

EPSS

0%

chance of exploitation in 30 days

Affects

netskope

endpoint_dlp

CVSS base

5.6

MEDIUM

CISA SSVC assessment

Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses · SSVC 2.0.3. A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.

CISA

Exploitation

None

none · proof-of-concept · active

Automatable

No

can an attacker script all four kill-chain steps

Technical impact

Partial

partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Affected scope

The catalog records vendors and products as separate lists, not pairs, so which product belongs to which vendor is not something this page can say.

Vendors (1)

Products (1)

endpoint dlp

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactSource
5.6CVSS 4.0MEDIUMcvelistV5

Weakness & attack patterns

  • CWE-125

Public exploit

Capability, not use: code existing is a different claim from anyone running it.

Indexed by

poc in github

References

2 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

  • No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
  • No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
  • No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.