CVE-2024-36468
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 · uneditedThe reported vulnerability is a stack buffer overflow in the zbx_snmp_cache_handle_engineid function within the Zabbix server/proxy code. This issue occurs when copying data from session->securityEngineID to local_record.engineid without proper bounds checking.
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 confidenceA stack buffer overflow vulnerability exists in the zbx_snmp_cache_handle_engineid function where data from session->securityEngineID is copied to local_record.engineid without validating that the source data length fits within the destination buffer size. An attacker could send specially crafted SNMP packets with an oversized securityEngineID to overflow the stack buffer.
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>= 7.0.0, < 7.0.3CVSS 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
- Low
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/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.
-
Check if Zabbix server or proxy is installedRun 'zabbix_server --version' or 'zabbix_proxy --version' to verify Zabbix components are present on the systemAffected if Zabbix server or proxy binaries exist on the host
-
Determine the installed Zabbix versionExecute 'zabbix_server --version' or 'zabbix_proxy --version' and note the version number in the outputAffected if The reported version is 7.0.0, 7.0.1, or 7.0.2 (falls within >= 7.0.0 and < 7.0.3)
-
Check if SNMP monitoring is enabledInspect Zabbix configuration for SNMP items or templates: look for 'snmp' in /etc/zabbix/zabbix_server.conf or /etc/zabbix/zabbix_proxy.conf, or check the Zabbix web interface for SNMP-monitored hostsAffected if SNMP monitoring items or SNMP templates are configured and active
The environment is affected if Zabbix version is 7.0.0, 7.0.1, or 7.0.2 and SNMP monitoring is actively used to poll SNMP-enabled devices
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.
dbcve · scoped7.0.3
Implement proper length validation by checking the size of session->securityEngineID against the allocated size of local_record.engineid before copying data. Apply the fix in the Zabbix server and proxy components.
7.0.3 or later (7.0.x stable releases)
- Upgrade Zabbix server and proxy installations from any version >= 7.0.0 and < 7.0.3 to version 7.0.3 or later
- Ensure both Zabbix server and proxy components are upgraded to maintain consistent vulnerability coverage
- After upgrade, verify the Zabbix services start successfully and monitor for any SNMP-related errors in the logs
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $6,080.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-36468 — 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-2024-36468 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