CVE-2024-6918
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 · uneditedCWE-120: Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input ('Classic Buffer Overflow') vulnerability exists that could cause a crash of the Accutech Manager when receiving a specially crafted request over port 2536/TCP.
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 confidenceA CWE-120 classic buffer overflow vulnerability exists in Accutech Manager where receiving a specially crafted request over port 2536/TCP can cause a buffer overflow due to insufficient size checking during the buffer copy operation, leading to a denial of service (application crash).
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
- 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.
-
Verify Accutech Manager is installedCheck for Accutech Manager installation by searching for the application in installed programs (Windows) or via command line: 'dir /s /b Accutech*' or review application inventoryAffected if Accutech Manager software is found on the system
-
Confirm port 2536/TCP is listeningRun 'netstat -ano | findstr :2536' or 'ss -tlnp | grep 2536' to check if the service is bound and listening on TCP port 2536Affected if Port 2536/TCP shows as LISTENING state indicating the vulnerable service is active
-
Identify the installed versionCheck the application version through: the executable properties (right-click Accutech Manager.exe > Properties > Details), registry keys if applicable, or the software's built-in About/Version dialogAffected if The installed version matches or falls within any affected version ranges published in the CVE advisory (compare your version against these ranges)
-
Assess network exposureDetermine if port 2536/TCP is accessible from untrusted networks by reviewing firewall rules: 'netsh advfirewall firewall show rule name=all' or by attempting a remote connection to the port from an external hostAffected if Port 2536/TCP is exposed to untrusted network segments or the internet
You are affected if Accutech Manager is installed with port 2536/TCP listening and the version falls within affected ranges, especially if the port is network-accessible.
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 dataImplement proper input validation and size checking before copying data into fixed-size buffers. Consider input length validation, use of safe string functions (e.g., strncpy, snprintf), or bounds checking libraries to prevent overflow conditions.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
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 locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-6918 — 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-2024-6918 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