CVE-2024-31195
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::of13::MultipartReplyTable::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::of13::MultipartReplyTable::unpack routine in libfluid 0.1.0. This function, responsible for parsing OpenFlow 1.3 multipart reply table messages, reads memory beyond allocated buffer boundaries without proper validation, potentially allowing an attacker to extract sensitive information from process memory by sending specially crafted OpenFlow 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 versionCheck the installed version of libfluid msg library (e.g., check package manifest, dependency file, or library binary version)Affected if Version is 0.1.0 exactly
-
Confirm OpenFlow 1.3 usageDetermine whether your system or application is configured to use OpenFlow 1.3 protocol (check controller/switch configuration files or runtime settings)Affected if OpenFlow 1.3 is enabled and the system processes OpenFlow messages
-
Verify MultipartReplyTable parsing is activeCheck if your environment processes MultipartReplyTable messages (monitor network traffic or application logs for OFPT_MULTIPART_REPLY with OFPMP_TABLE type)Affected if MultipartReplyTable messages are being received and parsed by the libfluid library
-
Inspect memory access patternsIf you have debugging or logging capabilities, examine whether the MultipartReplyTable::unpack routine attempts to read beyond buffer lengths when processing malformed or large table statisticsAffected if The unpack function is called with messages where length fields exceed actual buffer sizes
You are affected if libfluid msg version 0.1.0 is installed and your environment processes OpenFlow 1.3 MultipartReplyTable messages, as the vulnerable unpack routine will read beyond buffer boundaries when parsing these messages.
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 proper bounds checking in the MultipartReplyTable::unpack routine to validate message length fields against buffer size before reading, and add input validation for all length fields in the OpenFlow message parsing code.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,656.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-31195 — 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-2024-31195 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