LibiglApplication

CVE-2024-23951

HIGH · 8.8 CVSS v3.1 Published 2024-05-28
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
95/100
Remediation priority · Urgent
Remotely reachable No privileges

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
Multiple improper array index validation vulnerabilities exist in the readMSH functionality of libigl v2.5.0. A specially crafted .msh file can lead to an out-of-bounds write. An attacker can provide a malicious file to trigger this vulnerability.This vulnerability concerns the `igl::MshLoader::parse_element_field` function while handling an `ascii`.msh` file.

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

Multiple improper array index validation vulnerabilities in libigl v2.5.0's MshLoader::parse_element_field function allow out-of-bounds writes when parsing specially crafted ASCII .msh mesh files. Insufficient validation of array indices during element field parsing enables memory corruption that could be leveraged for code execution.

MitigationImplement robust bounds checking on all array indices before access in the parse_element_field function; validate that index values read from the .msh file fall within allocated buffer bounds before dereferencing.

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
LibiglApplication
Affected:= 2.5.0

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
Required
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/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. Identify libigl version
    Check the version of libigl installed in your environment or referenced in your project's dependency files (e.g., package.json, CMakeLists.txt, conanfile.txt, vcpkg.json). Look for a direct reference to version 2.5.0.
    Affected if The installed libigl version is exactly 2.5.0
  2. Locate MshLoader usage
    Search your codebase for references to 'MshLoader' or '#include <igloo/mesh/msh/MSHLoader.hpp>' (or similar paths) to determine if the .msh mesh file parser is being used.
    Affected if MshLoader is included or instantiated in your code
  3. Identify .msh file parsing code
    Search for file open/parse operations that load .msh files. Look for function calls such as igl::readMSH, MshLoader::load, or similar functions that accept .msh file paths as input.
    Affected if Your code parses .msh mesh files from external or untrusted sources
  4. Determine .msh input format
    Examine how .msh files are read: check if the parser handles ASCII-formatted .msh files (the vulnerable code path) versus binary .msh files. Look for flags, parameters, or file signature detection that switches between formats.
    Affected if Your application processes ASCII-formatted .msh files (not binary-only)
  5. Check for element field parsing
    If using a modified or custom libigl build, inspect the MshLoader::parse_element_field function to verify whether bounds checking on array indices is implemented before array access operations.
    Affected if No bounds validation exists on array indices in parse_element_field when handling element data from .msh files

You are affected if you use libigl version 2.5.0 and your application parses ASCII .msh mesh files using the MshLoader class with untrusted or external input.

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

Implement robust bounds checking on all array indices before access in the parse_element_field function; validate that index values read from the .msh file fall within allocated buffer bounds before dereferencing.

Fix this in Libigl Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation4.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA1.0 h
10.0 hours of engineering $1,750
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,800.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-23951 — 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-2024-23951 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