CVE-2024-31171
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 · uneditedOut-of-bounds Read vulnerability in Open Networking Foundation (ONF) libfluid (libfluid_msg module). This vulnerability is associated with program routine fluid_msg::of10::StatsReplyPort::unpack. This issue affects libfluid: 0.1.0.
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 confidenceAn out-of-bounds read vulnerability exists in the fluid_msg::of10::StatsReplyPort::unpack routine within the libfluid_msg module of libfluid version 0.1.0. The vulnerability occurs during message unpacking where insufficient bounds validation allows reading memory beyond allocated buffers when processing OpenFlow 1.0 StatsReplyPort messages.
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= 0.1.0CVSS 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
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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 libfluid_msg library presenceSearch for libfluid_msg library files in the system: look for files named libfluid_msg.so, libfluid_msg.a, or fluid_msg.* source files in the project. Check package managers or dependency manifests for libfluid_msg references.Affected if The libfluid_msg library is found in the environment
-
Verify libfluid_msg version is 0.1.0Check the version of the installed libfluid_msg library. Inspect version headers, library file metadata, or check the source code version tag. Compare against the affected version range.Affected if The installed version is exactly 0.1.0
-
Confirm OpenFlow 1.0 (of10) protocol support is enabledInspect the application or controller configuration for OpenFlow protocol settings. Look for of10, OpenFlow10, or OF 1.0 enablement flags in configuration files or code that initializes the OpenFlow version handler.Affected if OpenFlow 1.0 protocol support is enabled in the configuration
-
Check if StatsReplyPort message processing is activeReview application logs, debug output, or code that handles incoming OpenFlow messages. StatsReplyPort is used to query port statistics. Determine if the environment processes port status requests or responses.Affected if The environment processes OpenFlow 1.0 StatsReplyPort messages from switches or controllers
The environment is affected if libfluid_msg version 0.1.0 is in use AND OpenFlow 1.0 StatsReplyPort message processing is enabled, allowing the out-of-bounds read during message unpacking.
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 dataUpgrade to a patched version of libfluid if available; otherwise, implement explicit bounds checking in the StatsReplyPort::unpack routine to validate message length fields before reading buffer data.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing5.0 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 $4,464.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-31171 — 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-2024-31171 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