CVE-2024-24684
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 · uneditedMultiple stack-based buffer overflow vulnerabilities exist in the readOFF functionality of libigl v2.5.0. A specially crafted .off file can lead to stack-based buffer overflow. An attacker can provide a malicious file to trigger this vulnerability.This vulnerability concerns the header parsing occuring while processing an `.off` file via the `readOFF` function. We can see above that at [0] a stack-based buffer called `comment` is defined with an hardcoded size of `1000 bytes`. The call to `fscanf` at [1] is unsafe and if the first line of the header of the `.off` files is longer than 1000 bytes it will overflow the `header` buffer.
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 confidenceStack-based buffer overflow in libigl v2.5.0's readOFF function. A 1000-byte stack buffer 'comment' is overflowed by an unsafe fscanf call when parsing the header of a malicious .off file longer than 1000 bytes.
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= 2.5.0CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify libigl versionCheck the installed libigl version by inspecting the build configuration, package manager listing, or header files (e.g., igl.h or version.h). Compare against the affected version 2.5.0.Affected if libigl version is exactly 2.5.0
-
Locate readOFF function sourceSearch the codebase for the readOFF function implementation. Common locations include files named readOFF.cpp, readOFF.h, or OFF.cpp in the igl library source tree.Affected if The readOFF function exists and is being used in the project
-
Verify .off file processingIdentify if the application loads or parses .off 3D model files. Search for calls to readOFF, readOFF_into, or igl::readOFF in the codebase, or monitor for .off file input handling.Affected if The application processes .off files using libigl's readOFF function
-
Inspect the vulnerable code patternExamine the readOFF source code for the unsafe fscanf call that reads into a fixed-size 'comment' buffer. Look for patterns like 'fscanf(fp, "%999s", comment)' or similar without proper bounds checking on the header length.Affected if The readOFF function contains an fscanf call writing to a fixed-size buffer without length validation
-
Check for malicious .off file handlingReview how .off file headers are processed. The vulnerability triggers when a .off file header exceeds 1000 bytes. Check if there is any input validation on file header size before parsing.Affected if .off files with headers larger than 1000 bytes can be processed without validation
You are affected if you are using libigl version 2.5.0 and your application uses the readOFF function to parse .off files, particularly if untrusted .off files can be processed.
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 dataReplace the unsafe fscanf call with a bounds-checked function (e.g., fgets) and implement proper input validation for the header length before copying to the fixed-size buffer.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
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 locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-24684 — 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-2024-24684 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