CVE-2024-41660
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 · uneditedslpd-lite is a unicast SLP UDP server. Any OpenBMC system that includes the slpd-lite package is impacted. Installing this package is the default when building OpenBMC. Nefarious users can send slp packets to the BMC using UDP port 427 to cause memory overflow issues within the slpd-lite daemon on the BMC. Patches will be available in the latest openbmc/slpd-lite repository.
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 memory overflow vulnerability exists in slpd-lite, a unicast SLP UDP server used in OpenBMC systems. An unauthenticated remote attacker can send specially crafted SLP packets to UDP port 427, causing a buffer overflow in the slpd-lite daemon and potentially enabling remote code execution on the BMC.
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.
-
Verify slpd-lite is running on the BMCExecute 'ps aux | grep slpd' or check the BMC service status for slpd-liteAffected if The slpd-lite daemon process is active or installed on the system
-
Confirm UDP port 427 is listeningRun 'netstat -ulnp | grep 427' or 'ss -ulnp | grep 427' to check if SLP UDP port is openAffected if UDP port 427 is listening and exposed on the BMC network interface
-
Check slpd-lite versionRun 'slpd --version' or check the package version via the BMC package manager (e.g., 'rpm -q slpd-lite' or 'dpkg -l | grep slpd')Affected if The installed version is older than the patched version available in the openbmc/slpd-lite repository
-
Verify SLP service is enabledCheck the OpenBMC service configuration or startup scripts for slpd-lite autostart statusAffected if The SLP service is set to start automatically on BMC boot
-
Assess network accessibility of UDP 427Review firewall rules or network configuration to determine if UDP port 427 is reachable from untrusted networksAffected if UDP port 427 is accessible from network segments outside the trusted management network
A user is affected if slpd-lite is running with UDP port 427 exposed and the installed version predates the available security patch.
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 upcoming patch from the openbmc/slpd-lite repository and rebuild the OpenBMC firmware. In the interim, restrict network access to UDP port 427 using firewall rules or network segmentation to prevent unauthorized SLP packet reception.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $4,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-41660 — 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-2024-41660 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