CVE-2020-24341
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedAn issue was discovered in picoTCP and picoTCP-NG through 1.7.0. The TCP input data processing function in pico_tcp.c does not validate the length of incoming TCP packets, which leads to an out-of-bounds read when assembling received packets into a data segment, eventually causing Denial-of-Service or an information leak.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidencepicoTCP and picoTCP-NG through 1.7.0 contain a vulnerability in the TCP input data processing function (pico_tcp.c) where incoming TCP packet lengths are not validated before assembling packets into data segments. This missing bounds check allows out-of-bounds memory reads, potentially causing denial of service or leaking sensitive memory contents.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data<= 1.7.0<= 1.7.0CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:H
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify if picoTCP is in useSearch for picoTCP library files (.a, .so, .lib) in the system or codebase, or grep for 'picoTCP' in application binaries and dependenciesAffected if picoTCP or picoTCP-NG library is linked or embedded in the environment
-
Determine the picoTCP versionCheck version strings in library files, source code version headers, or build manifests; compare against the library filename or embedded version infoAffected if The version is 1.7.0 or lower for either picoTCP or picoTCP-NG
-
Verify TCP processing is activeConfirm the application or device uses picoTCP for TCP/IP networking; check configuration or runtime status for active TCP connectionsAffected if TCP networking feature is enabled and TCP packets are being processed through picoTCP
-
Inspect TCP input handling codeExamine the pico_tcp.c source file for the tcp_input function and look for missing length validation before data segment assemblyAffected if The code lacks bounds checking on TCP packet length fields prior to buffer operations
A user is affected if their environment uses picoTCP or picoTCP-NG version 1.7.0 or earlier with TCP networking enabled and the vulnerable TCP packet processing code is present.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataImplement proper length validation in the TCP packet processing function to ensure packet length fields are checked against actual data before buffer assembly, preventing out-of-bounds reads.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing12.0 h
- Review / QA6.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $8,192.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-24341 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2020-24341 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data