CVE-2024-52024
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 · uneditedNetgear XR300 v1.0.3.78, R7000P v1.3.3.154, and R6400 v2 1.0.4.128 was discovered to contain a stack overflow via the pppoe_localip parameter at wizpppoe.cgi. This vulnerability allows attackers to cause a Denial of Service (DoS) via a crafted POST request.
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 confidenceStack-based buffer overflow in the wizpppoe.cgi web handler allows attackers to crash the router via an oversized pppoe_localip parameter in a crafted POST request, causing a denial of service condition.
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= 1.0.3.78= 1.3.3.154= 1.0.4.128CVSS 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
- Adjacent
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/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 router modelAccess the router's web administration interface or check the device label/menu to confirm the exact model number (Xr300, R7000p, or R6400v2)Affected if Router is NOT one of these three models - the vulnerability only affects Netgear Xr300, R7000p, and R6400v2
-
Check firmware versionLog into the router web interface and navigate to the Administration or Firmware Upgrade section to view the current firmware version, or use the router's status pageAffected if Firmware version matches exactly 1.0.3.78 (Xr300), 1.3.3.154 (R7000p), or 1.0.4.128 (R6400v2)
-
Verify web management interface accessibilityAttempt to access the router's web interface from the network (typically http://routerlogin.net or http://192.168.1.1)Affected if Web interface is reachable - the vulnerability is exploited via HTTP POST requests to the wizpppoe.cgi handler
-
Confirm wizpppoe.cgi endpoint existsSend a request to http://<router_ip>/wizpppoe.cgi or check if the endpoint responds (even with an error)Affected if The wizpppoe.cgi endpoint is present and responds - this is the vulnerable web handler
-
Check PPPoE configuration statusNavigate to the router's Internet/WAN settings in the web interface to see if PPPoE is enabled and configuredAffected if PPPoE is configured - the vulnerable parameter pppoe_localip is related to PPPoE settings
You are affected if you own a Netgear Xr300, R7000p, or R6400v2 router running exactly version 1.0.3.78, 1.3.3.154, or 1.0.4.128 respectively, and the web management interface with wizpppoe.cgi is accessible on your network.
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 vendor firmware updates when available; until then, restrict access to the device's web management interface to trusted networks only to reduce attack surface.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation1.0 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 $1,936.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-52024 — 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-2024-52024 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