Esp IdfApplication · Espressif

CVE-2024-33453

HIGH · 8.1 CVSS v3.1 Published 2024-10-17
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
87/100
Remediation priority · High
Remotely reachable Zero-click

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
Buffer Overflow vulnerability in esp-idf v.5.1 allows a remote attacker to obtain sensitive information via the externalId component.

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

Buffer overflow vulnerability in Espressif IoT Development Framework (esp-idf) v5.1 in the externalId component. A remote attacker can exploit improper bounds checking when processing externalId to overflow a buffer and obtain sensitive information from memory.

MitigationUpdate to patched esp-idf version if available; otherwise review and fix code handling externalId to ensure proper bounds validation before buffer operations.

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
Esp IdfApplication
Affected:= 5.1

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
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
None

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N

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 esp-idf version
    Run 'idf.py --version' or check the installed esp-idf version through the esptool or the IDF_PATH version file. On systems with multiple IDF installations, verify which version is active in the current environment.
    Affected if The installed or linked esp-idf version is exactly 5.1 (v5.1). Versions other than 5.1 are not affected by this specific CVE.
  2. Locate externalId usage in project
    Search project source code and configuration files for references to 'externalId', 'external_id', or similar variants. Check device provisioning code, configuration manifests, and any JSON/protobuf files that define device identity attributes.
    Affected if The project code, configuration, or provisioning data structures reference or process an externalId field that gets passed to esp-idf APIs.
  3. Check externalId input handling
    Review the code path that receives or processes externalId data. Look for functions that copy, parse, or deserialize externalId values into buffers. Search for uses of functions like memcpy, strcpy, strncpy, or similar buffer operations on externalId.
    Affected if The code performs buffer operations on externalId without proper bounds validation, such as using unbounded copy functions or failing to check length before writing.
  4. Inspect build configuration
    Review the project sdkconfig and build configuration files for any settings related to device identity, external ID handling, or provisioning modules. Check if the CONFIG_ESP_IDF_VERSION is set to v5.1.
    Affected if The build is configured with esp-idf v5.1 and includes provisioning or identity modules that handle externalId.

You are affected if your project uses esp-idf v5.1 and processes externalId data through code paths that perform buffer operations without proper length validation.

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

Update to patched esp-idf version if available; otherwise review and fix code handling externalId to ensure proper bounds validation before buffer operations.

Fix this in Esp Idf Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation8.0 h
  • Testing6.0 h
  • Review / QA4.0 h
22.0 hours of engineering $3,860
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-33453 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2024-33453 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