CVE-2024-8748
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 · uneditedA buffer overflow vulnerability in the packet parser of the third-party library "libclinkc" in Zyxel VMG8825-T50K firmware versions through V5.50(ABOM.8.4)C0 could allow an attacker to cause a temporary denial of service (DoS) condition against the web management interface by sending a crafted HTTP POST request to a vulnerable device.
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 buffer overflow vulnerability exists in the packet parser of the third-party library libclinkc in Zyxel VMG8825-T50K firmware through V5.50(ABOM.8.4)C0. Remote attackers can trigger this via crafted HTTP POST requests to the web management interface, causing a temporary DoS 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< 1.00\(abqu.6\)c0< 1.00\(absq.5\)c0< 1.00\(abq.5\)c0< 1.00\(abra.10\)c0< 1.00\(abqy.9\)c0< 1.00\(abu.11\)c0< 1.00\(abyd.4\)c0< 1.16\(accg.1\)c0CVSS 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 device model and firmware versionAccess the device web management interface and navigate to Status or System Info page to view the model name and firmware version. Alternatively, check the device label or documentation.Affected if The device model is one of: Lte3301 Plus, Lte5388 M804, Lte5398 M904, Lte7480 M804, Lte7490 M904, Nr7101, Nr7102, or Nebula Nr5101, AND the firmware version is lower than the fixed version for that model.
-
Confirm web management interface is enabledAccess the device web management interface via browser using the device IP address. Verify the login page loads and the interface is accessible.Affected if The web management interface is accessible and responsive to HTTP requests.
-
Check if remote management or WAN access is enabledIn the web management interface, navigate to the Network or Administration settings section and check if remote management/WAN access is enabled for the web interface.Affected if Remote management is enabled, allowing the web interface to be accessed from external networks (WAN).
If the device is a listed Zyxel model with firmware version below the specified threshold AND the web management interface is accessible (especially from WAN), the environment is affected by this 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 · scoped1.001.16
Apply available firmware updates from Zyxel that address this vulnerability, and restrict web management interface access to trusted networks or disable remote management if not required.
Upgrade to firmware version 1.00(abqu.6)c0 or later for Lte3301 Plus; 1.00(absq.5)c0 or later for Lte5388 M804; 1.00(abq.5)c0 or later for Lte5398 M904; 1.00(abra.10)c0 or later for Lte7480 M804; 1.00(abqy.9)c0 or later for Lte7490 M904; 1.00(abu.11)c0 or later for Nr7101; 1.00(abyd.4)c0 or later fo
- 1. Identify the specific Zyxel device model from the affected list (Lte3301 Plus, Lte5388 M804, Lte5398 M904, Lte7480 M804, Lte7490 M904, Nr7101, Nr7102, or Nebula Nr5101)
- 2. Access the device's web management interface or administrative console
- 3. Navigate to the firmware update or system maintenance section
- 4. Download the corresponding firmware update from Zyxel's official support website (www.zyxel.com)
- 5. Upload and apply the firmware update to the device
- 6. Verify the firmware version has been updated to the fixed release or later
- 7. Restart the device if prompted
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation1.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $1,696.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-8748 — 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-2024-8748 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