CVE-2024-34034
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 · uneditedAn issue was discovered in FlexRIC 2.0.0. It crashes during a Subscription Request denial-of-service (DoS) attack, triggered by an assertion error. An attacker must send a high number of E42 Subscription Requests to the Near-RT RIC 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 · high confidenceFlexRIC 2.0.0 contains a denial-of-service vulnerability in the Near-RT RIC component where processing a high volume of E42 Subscription Requests triggers an assertion error that crashes the service. The issue stems from improper handling of rapid subscription request traffic leading to assertion failures rather than graceful error handling.
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
- Physical
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:P/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/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 if FlexRIC is installedLook for flexric binaries, services, or processes on the system (e.g., run 'ps aux | grep flexric' or check common install directories)Affected if FlexRIC software is found on the system
-
Confirm the installed FlexRIC versionRun flexric --version or check version information in installed binaries/service metadataAffected if The version is 2.0.0 specifically (or falls within the affected range if later versions are published)
-
Verify E42 Subscription Request processing is enabledCheck configuration files or runtime settings for E42 subscription handler/subscription manager modulesAffected if E42 subscription processing is configured or enabled in the Near-RT RIC configuration
-
Review logs for assertion failuresExamine FlexRIC service logs for assertion error messages related to E42 or subscription request handlingAffected if Assertion failures in subscription processing code appear in logs after periods of high request traffic
If FlexRIC version 2.0.0 is running with E42 Subscription Request processing enabled and assertion errors appear in logs under load, the environment is affected by this CVE.
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 assertion-based error handling with proper error handling and input validation in the subscription request processing path. Implement rate limiting or throttling on E42 Subscription Requests to prevent mass request floods from causing crashes.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation12.0 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 $7,808.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-34034 — 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-2024-34034 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