CVE-2024-45239
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 was discovered in Fort before 1.6.3. A malicious RPKI repository that descends from a (trusted) Trust Anchor can serve (via rsync or RRDP) an ROA or a Manifest containing a null eContent field. Fort dereferences the pointer without sanitizing it first. Because Fort is an RPKI Relying Party, a crash can lead to Route Origin Validation unavailability, which can lead to compromised routing.
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 confidenceFort RPKI Validator before 1.6.3 dereferences a null eContent pointer without validation when processing ROAs or Manifests served by a malicious RPKI repository descendant from a trusted Trust Anchor, causing a crash that renders Route Origin Validation unavailable.
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< 1.6.3CVSS 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
- 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 Fort Validator versionRun 'fort-validator --version' or check the package manager: 'rpm -q fort-validator' or 'dpkg -l | grep -i fort'Affected if The installed version is lower than 1.6.3 (e.g., 1.6.2, 1.6.1, 1.6.0, or any 1.x version below 1.6.3)
-
Locate Fort Validator binary or installation directoryCheck common paths such as '/usr/bin/fort-validator', '/opt/fort/bin/fort-validator', or look for the executable in the system's PATH using 'which fort-validator'Affected if The binary exists but its version (obtained via --version) is below 1.6.3
-
Verify Fort Validator service is activeCheck running processes with 'ps aux | grep -i fort' or check service status with 'systemctl status fort-validator' or similar service management commandAffected if The service is running and the version from step 1 or 2 is below 1.6.3
If Fort RPKI Validator is installed and running with a version prior to 1.6.3, the environment is affected by this null pointer dereference vulnerability.
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 · scoped1.6.3
Upgrade Fort to version 1.6.3 or later which includes proper null pointer sanitization for eContent fields before dereferencing.
1.6.3
- Check the currently installed version of Fort Validator using the --version flag or equivalent command
- Download Fort Validator version 1.6.3 or later from the official Fort repository (e.g., GitHub releases or official distribution channels)
- Replace the existing Fort Validator binary with the new version
- Restart the Fort Validator service to load the updated binary
- Verify the new version is running (e.g., fort --version shows 1.6.3 or later)
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $2,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-45239 — 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-2024-45239 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