CVE-2024-21631
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 · uneditedVapor is an HTTP web framework for Swift. Prior to version 4.90.0, Vapor's `vapor_urlparser_parse` function uses `uint16_t` indexes when parsing a URI's components, which may cause integer overflows when parsing untrusted inputs. This vulnerability does not affect Vapor directly but could impact applications relying on the URI type for validating user input. The URI type is used in several places in Vapor. A developer may decide to use URI to represent a URL in their application (especially if that URL is then passed to the HTTP Client) and rely on its public properties and methods. However, URI may fail to properly parse a valid (albeit abnormally long) URL, due to string ranges being converted to 16-bit integers. An attacker may use this behavior to trick the application into accepting a URL to an untrusted destination. By padding the port number with zeros, an attacker can cause an integer overflow to occur when the URL authority is parsed and, as a result, spoof the host. Version 4.90.0 contains a patch for this issue. As a workaround, validate user input before parsing as a URI or, if possible, use Foundation's `URL` and `URLComponents` utilities.
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 analysisThe application accepts input without confirming it is well-formed or within expected bounds, so malformed data can push the program into states its author never anticipated. Attackers probe these gaps to trigger crashes, bypass logic, or feed tainted values into more dangerous operations downstream. Remediating it well means validating and normalising every input at the boundary against a strict allow-list — not merely filtering known-bad values.
General guidance for the improper input validation class — the official description and references above are authoritative for this specific CVE. Want a bespoke review and a reviewed fix? Ask our team →
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< 4.90.0CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
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.
dbcve · scoped4.90.0
Vapor 4.90.0
- Upgrade Vapor to version 4.90.0 or later using your dependency manager (e.g., `swift package update Vapor` or update your Package.swift to specify version 4.90.0)
- After upgrading, rebuild and test your application to ensure the URI parsing functionality works correctly
- As an additional precaution, validate user input before parsing as a URI, or consider using Foundation's URL and URLComponents utilities for input validation
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-21631 — 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-2024-21631 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