CVE-2024-8361
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 · uneditedIn SiWx91x devices, the SHA2/224 algorithm returns a hash of 256 bits instead of 224 bits. This incorrect hash length triggers a software assertion, which subsequently causes a Denial of Service (DoS). If a watchdog is implemented, device will restart after watch dog expires. If watchdog is not implemented, device can be recovered only after a hard reset
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 confidenceIn SiWx91x devices, the SHA2/224 cryptographic hash algorithm implementation incorrectly returns a 256-bit hash instead of the correct 224-bit hash. This mismatch triggers a software assertion failure, causing a denial of service. The device requires either a watchdog-initiated restart or a hard reset to recover.
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.
-
Identify SiWx91x device modelCheck device documentation, firmware banner, or system information to confirm the hardware is a Silicon Labs SiWx91x series device (commonly used in Wi-Fi/BLE modules)Affected if Device is NOT a SiWx91x variant - the vulnerability only affects this specific chipset family
-
Check firmware versionRetrieve the installed firmware version from the device via CLI (e.g., 'AT+VER' or 'fwver' command), boot logs, or module information request. Compare against any available version information from Silicon LabsAffected if No patch version is available or firmware predates the fix - the flaw exists in unpatched firmware versions
-
Verify SHA2/224 hash usageReview application code, configuration files, or runtime logs to determine if the SHA2/224 hash function is being called by the application or serviceAffected if SHA2/224 is actively used - the flaw only triggers when this specific algorithm is invoked
-
Check for assertion failure logsExamine device logs, debug output, or console messages for software assertion failures related to hash length mismatch, or look for unexpected restart/crash eventsAffected if Assertion failures appear in logs, especially those indicating hash size mismatch or watchdog-triggered resets - this confirms the vulnerability has been triggered
A user is affected if they have a SiWx91x device with unpatched firmware that actively uses the SHA2/224 cryptographic hash function, resulting in assertion failures or denial-of-service events.
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-provided firmware patch to correct the SHA2/224 implementation. If no patch is available, avoid using SHA2/224 until the vendor releases a fix, and ensure watchdog is enabled as a recovery mechanism.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,792.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-8361 — 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-2024-8361 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