CVE-2024-3184
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 CWE-476 NULL Pointer Dereference vulnerabilities were found in GoAhead Web Server up to version 6.0.0 when compiled with the ME_GOAHEAD_REPLACE_MALLOC flag. Without a memory notifier for allocation failures, remote attackers can exploit these vulnerabilities by sending malicious requests, leading to a crash and Denial of Service (DoS).
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 confidenceMultiple NULL pointer dereference vulnerabilities (CWE-476) exist in GoAhead Web Server versions up to 6.0.0 when compiled with the ME_GOAHEAD_REPLACE_MALLOC flag and without a configured memory notifier. Remote attackers can send malicious requests to trigger allocation failures that lead to NULL pointer dereferences, causing the server to crash and result in a Denial of Service.
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
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/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 GoAhead Web Server installation and versionQuery the server directly using a HTTP request to the root or a known endpoint, or run 'goahead -v' from the command line if accessible. Check any installed package manager listings for goahead version.Affected if The installed version is 6.0.0 or any version lower than 6.0.0
-
Determine if ME_GOAHEAD_REPLACE_MALLOC was used at compile timeExamine the GoAhead binary for symbols or strings related to custom memory allocation. If you built GoAhead from source, review the build configuration or makefile for the ME_GOAHEAD_REPLACE_MALLOC flag definition.Affected if The binary was compiled with ME_GOAHEAD_REPLACE_MALLOC defined
-
Check for configured memory notifierReview GoAhead configuration files for memory handler or allocator callback settings. Check for any memory notifier registration in the server configuration or initialization scripts.Affected if No memory notifier is configured or defined in the server configuration
-
Confirm exposure to network requestsVerify that the GoAhead server is bound to a network interface and accepts remote connections on any port.Affected if The server is listening on a reachable network interface and remote attackers can send requests to it
Your environment is affected if you are running GoAhead Web Server version 6.0.0 or lower, the binary was compiled with ME_GOAHEAD_REPLACE_MALLOC, and no memory notifier is configured, allowing remote attackers to crash the server via malicious requests.
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 dataEnsure a memory notifier is properly configured to handle allocation failures, or upgrade to a patched version of GoAhead Web Server if available. Consider evaluating whether the ME_GOAHEAD_REPLACE_MALLOC compilation flag is necessary for the deployment.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation1.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,696.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-3184 — 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-2024-3184 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