CVE-2024-40765
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 Integer-based buffer overflow vulnerability in the SonicOS via IPSec allows a remote attacker in specific conditions to cause Denial of Service (DoS) and potentially execute arbitrary code by sending a specially crafted IKEv2 payload.
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 confidenceAn integer-based buffer overflow exists in SonicOS IPSec implementation where a specially crafted IKEv2 packet can overflow an integer check, leading to buffer overflow conditions. This allows a remote unauthenticated attacker (in specific conditions) to potentially execute arbitrary code or cause denial of service.
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
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/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.
-
Confirm the device runs SonicOSIdentify the device manufacturer and firmware type. This vulnerability affects only SonicOS, not other SonicWall products or firmware types.Affected if The device does not run SonicOS as its operating system.
-
Determine the SonicOS versionAccess the SonicOS administrative interface or use CLI command 'show version' to retrieve the firmware version number.Affected if The installed SonicOS version matches the vulnerable version range for CVE-2024-40765.
-
Verify IPSec is enabledCheck SonicOS VPN settings via web interface (VPN > IPSec Settings) or CLI command 'show ipsec config' to confirm IPSec VPN is configured and active.Affected if IPSec is disabled; the vulnerability only applies when IPSec is enabled.
-
Confirm IKEv2 protocol is in useReview IPSec VPN policy settings to determine if IKEv2 is selected as the key exchange protocol (IKEv1, IKEv2, or both).Affected if Only IKEv1 is in use; the buffer overflow occurs specifically in the IKEv2 implementation.
-
Assess IPSec exposure to untrusted networksCheck firewall access rules and WAN interface configuration to determine if IPSec/IKEv2 ports (UDP 500, 4500) are exposed to the internet or untrusted networks.Affected if IPSec/IKEv2 is accessible from untrusted networks, increasing the likelihood of exploitation.
A user is affected if the device runs SonicOS with a vulnerable version, has IPSec enabled with IKEv2 configured, and IPSec/IKEv2 is accessible to untrusted networks.
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 patch from SonicWall for this vulnerability. If immediate patching is not possible, consider restricting IPSec/IKEv2 exposure to untrusted networks or disabling IKEv2 if not required.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation1.0 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 $2,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-40765 — 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-2024-40765 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