CVE-2024-34308
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 · uneditedTOTOLINK LR350 V9.3.5u.6369_B20220309 was discovered to contain a stack overflow via the password parameter in the function urldecode.
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 · low confidenceA stack-based buffer overflow vulnerability exists in TOTOLINK LR350 router firmware V9.3.5u.6369_B20220309. The vulnerability stems from insufficient bounds checking in the urldecode function when processing the password parameter, allowing an attacker to overwrite stack memory and potentially execute arbitrary code.
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= 9.3.5u.6369_b20220309CVSS 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
- Adjacent
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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 the router modelLog into the router web interface or check the device label to confirm the model is Totolink LR350. Alternatively, check the device information page at http://192.168.1.1 or your router's default gateway.Affected if The device is not a Totolink LR350 router
-
Check the firmware versionAccess the router web interface and navigate to System Status or Firmware Upgrade page to view the installed firmware version. The version string should display as 9.3.5u.6369_B20220309.Affected if The firmware version is exactly 9.3.5u.6369_B20220309
-
Confirm web management interface is accessibleVerify the router web management interface is reachable on the default HTTP/HTTPS ports (typically 80 or 443). Try accessing the router login page from a browser.Affected if The web management interface is accessible and the device is a Totolink LR350 running version 9.3.5u.6369_B20220309
A user is affected if they are running a Totolink LR350 router with firmware version 9.3.5u.6369_B20220309 and have the web management interface accessible.
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 dataApply the vendor-supplied firmware patch when available; until then, disable remote web management interfaces, restrict administrative access to trusted IP addresses only, and monitor for indicators of compromise.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,152.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-34308 — 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-2024-34308 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