Classic Buffer OverflowWeakness · CWE-120

CVE-2023-52729

HIGH · 7.5 CVSS v3.1 Published 2024-05-04
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
84/100
Remediation priority · High
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
TCPServer.cpp in SimpleNetwork through 29bc615 has an off-by-one error that causes a buffer overflow when trying to add '\0' to the end of long msg data. It can be exploited via crafted TCP packets.

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 confidence

SimpleNetwork's TCPServer.cpp contains an off-by-one buffer overflow vulnerability where attempting to add a null terminator ('\0') to the end of msg data that fills the buffer completely causes a one-byte overflow beyond the allocated buffer boundary. This can be exploited by sending crafted TCP packets with specially sized payloads.

MitigationUpdate SimpleNetwork to a version after commit 29bc615 that implements proper bounds checking to ensure sufficient space exists before appending the null terminator, or implement input validation to reject messages that would exceed buffer capacity.

Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.

CVSS 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
None
Integrity
None
Availability
High

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Locate SimpleNetwork TCPServer.cpp in your codebase
    Search your project files for TCPServer.cpp and verify it belongs to the SimpleNetwork library. Check for any local copies or vendored versions.
    Affected if TCPServer.cpp from SimpleNetwork is present in your environment
  2. Identify the SimpleNetwork version or commit
    Check the source control history, version tags, or any version identifiers associated with the TCPServer.cpp file. Look for the commit hash in the git history.
    Affected if The version is older than commit 29bc615 or the commit history cannot be verified
  3. Determine if TCP server functionality is in use
    Search your application code for instances where TCPServer class is instantiated or the TCP server is started. Look for calls to methods like Start(), Listen(), or Accept().
    Affected if Your application uses TCPServer to accept incoming TCP connections
  4. Inspect the buffer handling code in TCPServer.cpp
    Locate the code section that handles message buffers and null terminator insertion. Look for code patterns where msg data length is checked before adding '\0'.
    Affected if The code lacks proper bounds checking before appending the null terminator (the fix from commit 29bc615 is not present)
  5. Check for messages that could fill the buffer completely
    Review your application's TCP message handling to see if there are code paths where incoming TCP payloads could reach the maximum buffer size without validation.
    Affected if Your TCP server accepts messages without validating they leave room for the null terminator

You are affected if SimpleNetwork TCPServer.cpp is present, the code predates commit 29bc615, and your application uses TCP server functionality that could receive messages filling the buffer completely.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Update SimpleNetwork to a version after commit 29bc615 that implements proper bounds checking to ensure sufficient space exists before appending the null terminator, or implement input validation to reject messages that would exceed buffer capacity.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation1.0 h
  • Testing4.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
9.0 hours of engineering $1,540
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,464.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-52729 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2023-52729 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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