dbcve.org
Out-of-bounds ReadWeakness · CWE-125

CVE-2024-24425

MEDIUM · 6.5 CVSS v3.1 Published 2024-11-15
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
72/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
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
Magma v1.8.0 and OAI EPC Federation v1.20 were discovered to contain an out-of-bounds read in the amf_as_establish_req function at /tasks/amf/amf_as.cpp. This vulnerability allows attackers to cause a Denial of Service (DoS) via a crafted NAS packet.

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 confidence

Out-of-bounds read vulnerability in the AMF (Access and Mobility Management Function) at amf_as_establish_req in amf_as.cpp allows attackers to cause Denial of Service via crafted NAS (Non-Access Stratum) packets. The vulnerability exists in both Magma v1.8.0 and OAI EPC Federation v1.20.

MitigationApply vendor patches when available; until then, implement input validation and bounds checking on NAS message handling in the AMF component, and consider network-level filtering of malformed NAS packets.

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
Required
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
None
Availability
High

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/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. Identify the deployed 5G core package
    Check the installed packages or binaries for Magma or OAI EPC Federation. On Linux systems, run 'dpkg -l' or 'rpm -qa' to list installed packages, or check the application's version file if present (e.g., /opt/magma/version.txt or /opt/oai/version).
    Affected if The system has Magma v1.8.0 or OAI EPC Federation v1.20 installed.
  2. Confirm AMF component is running
    Check if the AMF (Access and Mobility Management Function) process is active. Run 'ps aux | grep amf' or check the running services via 'systemctl list-units | grep amf' depending on the deployment.
    Affected if The AMF service is running, which enables processing of NAS messages.
  3. Verify the specific AMF binary version
    If AMF is running, identify the exact binary version. Check the executable path (commonly /var/www/magma/amf or /usr/bin/amf) and run 'amf --version' or inspect binary metadata with 'file <amf_binary>' and check any embedded version strings via 'strings <amf_binary> | grep -i version'.
    Affected if The binary reports version 1.8.0 (Magma) or 1.20 (OAI EPC Federation).
  4. Check for NAS message listener configuration
    Examine the AMF configuration file (typically amf.conf or similar in /etc/magma or /etc/oai) for NAS message handling settings. Look for 'nas' or 'non-access-stratum' configuration sections.
    Affected if NAS message processing is enabled, which is the default and required state for AMF operation.
  5. Review AMF logs for crash indicators
    Check AMF service logs (via 'journalctl -u amf -n 100' or in /var/log/magma/amf.log) for any out-of-bounds read errors, segmentation faults, or abnormal termination events related to NAS packet handling.
    Affected if Recent logs show crashes or errors in amf_as_establish_req or NAS message processing functions.

You are affected if the AMF component is running and the installed version is Magma v1.8.0 or OAI EPC Federation v1.20, since the vulnerability lies in the core NAS message handling code at amf_as_establish_req in amf_as.cpp.

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

Apply vendor patches when available; until then, implement input validation and bounds checking on NAS message handling in the AMF component, and consider network-level filtering of malformed NAS packets.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation8.0 h
  • Testing4.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
16.0 hours of engineering $2,800
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,480.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-24425 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

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-2024-24425 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