dbcve.org
ModsecurityApplication · Trustwave

CVE-2024-46292

HIGH · 7.5 CVSS v3.1 Published 2024-10-09
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
84/100
Remediation priority · High
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
A buffer overflow in modsecurity v3.0.12 allows attackers to cause a Denial of Service (DoS) via a crafted input inserted into the name parameter. NOTE: this is disputed by the Supplier because it cannot be reproduced. Also, the product's documentation indicates that it is not guaranteed to be usable with very large values of SecRequestBodyNoFilesLimit (which are required by the claimed issue).

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 confidence

A buffer overflow vulnerability exists in ModSecurity v3.0.12 where a crafted input in the 'name' parameter can trigger a buffer overflow, leading to a Denial of Service. The issue reportedly requires setting SecRequestBodyNoFilesLimit to very large values, which the product documentation explicitly warns is not supported.

MitigationUntil the vulnerability is conclusively validated, adhere to ModSecurity's documented limits for SecRequestBodyNoFilesLimit and monitor for vendor updates. Consider implementing input validation layers upstream as a defense-in-depth measure.

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
ModsecurityApplication
Affected:= 3.0.12

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
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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify installed ModSecurity version
    Run `modsecurity v3 --version` or check the ModSecurity library binary version. If using Nginx/Apache with ModSecurity, check the module version via `nginx -v 2>&1` or `httpd -v` for the ModSecurity component.
    Affected if The installed version is exactly 3.0.12 (no other versions are listed as affected for this CVE).
  2. Locate ModSecurity configuration file
    Find the modsecurity.conf file, typically located in /etc/modsecurity/modsecurity.conf for standalone installations, or within the Nginx/Apache configuration directory (often /etc/nginx/modsecurity.conf or /etc/apache2/modsecurity.conf).
    Affected if Configuration file exists and SecRequestBodyNoFilesLimit directive is present.
  3. Check SecRequestBodyNoFilesLimit value
    Grep for `SecRequestBodyNoFilesLimit` in the configuration file using `grep -i SecRequestBodyNoFilesLimit /path/to/modsecurity.conf`. Note the numeric value assigned.
    Affected if The directive is set to an unusually large value (e.g., in the range of hundreds of MB or higher), which the CVE notes is required for the overflow condition. Standard values are typically much lower (e.g., 128KB to a few MB).
  4. Verify name parameter processing
    Review ModSecurity rules (often in crs.conf or custom rules) to confirm if the 'name' parameter from request bodies is being processed. Look for rules that reference `ARGS:name` or similar patterns.
    Affected if Rules exist that process the 'name' parameter from request body arguments, which is the specific vector described in the CVE.

You are affected only if you are running ModSecurity version 3.0.12, have SecRequestBodyNoFilesLimit set to a very large value, and have rules that process the 'name' request parameter.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Until the vulnerability is conclusively validated, adhere to ModSecurity's documented limits for SecRequestBodyNoFilesLimit and monitor for vendor updates. Consider implementing input validation layers upstream as a defense-in-depth measure.

Fix this in Modsecurity Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation8.0 h
  • Testing6.0 h
  • Review / QA4.0 h
22.0 hours of engineering $3,860
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-46292 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2024-46292 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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