CVE-2024-0816
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 · uneditedThe buffer overflow vulnerability in the DX3300-T1 firmware version V5.50(ABVY.4)C0 could allow an authenticated local attacker to cause denial of service (DoS) conditions by executing the CLI command with crafted strings on an affected device.
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 · moderate confidenceA buffer overflow vulnerability in the CLI command parser of the DX3300-T1 router firmware version V5.50(ABVY.4)C0 allows authenticated local attackers to crash the device by executing CLI commands with specially crafted strings, resulting in denial of service.
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= 1.00\(abwf.3\)c0= 1.00\(abqu.5\)c0= 1.00\(absq.4\)c0= 1.00\(abq.4\)c0= 2.00\(abmg.7\)c0= 1.00\(abra.8\)c0= 1.00\(abqy.7\)c0= 4.19\(abyc.5\)c0CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify device modelAccess the router web interface or CLI and retrieve the model name from system information or device status pageAffected if Device is a Zyxel LTE model (Lte3202 M437, Lte3301 Plus, Lte5388 M804, Lte5398 M904, Lte7240 M403, Lte7480 M804, Lte7490 M904, or Nr5103) or DX3300-T1
-
Check firmware versionAccess the router admin interface and navigate to Status, System Info, or Firmware section to view the installed firmware versionAffected if Firmware version matches or is earlier than the affected versions: 1.00(abwf.3)c0, 1.00(abqu.5)c0, 1.00(absq.4)c0, 1.00(abq.4)c0, 2.00(abmg.7)c0, 1.00(abra.8)c0, 1.00(abqy.7)c0, 4.19(abyc.5)c0, or V5.50(ABVY.4)C0 for DX3300-T1
-
Verify CLI interface is accessibleAttempt to access the router CLI via telnet, SSH, or serial console if available. Check admin interface for CLI or debug settingsAffected if CLI interface is enabled and accessible to authenticated users
-
Confirm local authentication is possibleTest login credentials against the router admin interface or CLI to verify authenticated access is possibleAffected if Attacker can obtain valid credentials for the device
A device is affected if it is a Zyxel LTE model or DX3300-T1 router running a matching affected firmware version AND the CLI interface is accessible to authenticated users, allowing a locally authenticated attacker to crash the device via specially crafted CLI commands.
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 dataApply vendor firmware updates when available; until then, limit CLI access to trusted authenticated users only and monitor for anomalous CLI activity.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,896.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-0816 — 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-2024-0816 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