CVE-2024-36745
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 OneFlow-Inc. Oneflow v0.9.1 allows attackers to cause a Denial of Service (DoS) via inputting a negative value into the oneflow.index_select parameter.
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 confidenceA Denial of Service vulnerability exists in OneFlow v0.9.1 where the index_select operation does not properly handle negative index values. When a user provides a negative value to the index_select parameter, it causes the service to become unavailable, likely due to improper bounds checking in the array indexing logic.
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.
-
Check installed OneFlow versionRun the command to display the OneFlow version (e.g., oneflow --version, pip show oneflow, or check the package metadata)Affected if The installed version is exactly 0.9.1
-
Identify index_select usageSearch application code and logs for calls to the index_select function or operation, particularly where user input is passed as the index parameterAffected if The index_select function is used and accepts user-supplied index values without validation
-
Inspect input validation for index parametersReview the code that handles index_select calls to determine whether negative values are filtered or validated before being passed to the operationAffected if No validation exists to reject negative index values before they reach index_select
-
Check for DoS symptomsReview application logs for service availability issues or errors that correlate with index_select operations receiving negative indicesAffected if Service unavailability events coincide with negative index inputs to index_select
You are affected if OneFlow version 0.9.1 is running AND your application uses index_select with user-supplied indices that are not validated to reject negative values.
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 dataUsers should upgrade to a patched version of OneFlow when available. As a workaround, input validation should be implemented to reject negative index values before passing them to the index_select function until the patch is applied.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $1,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-36745 — 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-2024-36745 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