CVE-2024-36742
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 in the oneflow.scatter_nd parameter OneFlow-Inc. Oneflow v0.9.1 allows attackers to cause a Denial of Service (DoS) when index parameter exceeds the range of shape.
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 confidenceThe oneflow.scatter_nd function in OneFlow v0.9.1 lacks proper bounds validation on the index parameter. When the index parameter exceeds the range of the shape, it causes a denial of service. This is a bounds checking vulnerability in the scatter_nd tensor operation commonly used for sparse tensor updates in deep learning workflows.
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= 0.9.1CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/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 OneFlow installation and versionRun 'python -c "import oneflow; print(oneflow.__version__)"' or 'pip show oneflow' to check the installed version of OneFlowAffected if The version shown is exactly 0.9.1
-
Detect scatter_nd usage in codeSearch codebase for calls to oneflow.scatter_nd or flow.scatter_nd using grep: 'grep -r "scatter_nd" . --include="*.py"' or similarAffected if Codebase contains calls to scatter_nd function
-
Inspect index parameter handlingReview the scatter_nd调用 in your code to determine if index parameters are derived from user input, dynamic calculations, or external data without prior bounds validationAffected if Index values could potentially exceed the target tensor shape dimensions
-
Check for input validation before scatter_ndExamine code paths leading to scatter_nd calls for any bounds checking logic (e.g., comparisons ensuring indices < shape[i])Affected if No validation exists to ensure indices are within valid shape bounds before calling scatter_nd
A user is affected if they run OneFlow version 0.9.1 and execute scatter_nd with indices that may exceed tensor shape bounds
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 dataUpgrade to a patched version of OneFlow or implement input validation to ensure index parameters are within valid shape bounds before calling scatter_nd.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-36742 — 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-2024-36742 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