CVE-2024-50602
Is CVE-2024-50602 real, exploitable, or a false positive? Here's the community verdict.
signals
public sources
Moderate signals. Triage by your actual exposure and reachability.
scanner noise
anonymous, aggregated from real reports · via Denoizr| Scanner | Flagged in | Turned out noise |
|---|---|---|
| Wiz | 1 scan | 0% |
How often this CVE was flagged by each scanner and how much turned out to be noise (false positives), aggregated anonymously from de-noised reports. Higher noise means the alert is more often not a real risk — verify your exposure.
baseline read
auto · not a community verdict
Low signal — verdict needed
Few public signals point to active risk. Whether a scanner hit here is a true or false positive depends on your version and config — community verdicts decide.
Based on CVSS · FIRST EPSS
Confirm or dispute →CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
An issue was discovered in libexpat before 2.6.4. There is a crash within the XML_ResumeParser function because XML_StopParser can stop/suspend an unstarted parser.
References
Published
Embed this verdict
[](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2024-50602)<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2024-50602"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2024-50602/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2024-50602"></a>Live badge that updates automatically as the community verdict changes.
Community ground truth
Be the first practitioner to weigh in
So far this is only TruePositive's editorial baseline from public sources. Add your real-world verdict below — it becomes the signal the next person triaging this relies on.
🥇 The first 50 practitioners to contribute earn a Founding Contributor badge.
In your experience, is this finding real and exploitable?
awaiting field verdictsNo account needed. Anonymous verdicts post as an unverified signal. Log in to make yours verified and earn reputation.
Field notes & remediation
Verdicts are the quick signal. Notes are the evidence and fixes behind them.
No notes yet. Be the first to share what you saw, or a fix that worked.
Add a field note or remediationoptional
Related CVEs
Same weakness: CWE-754.
- CVE-2023-41993HIGH 8.8KEVEPSS 29%
The issue was addressed with improved checks. This issue is fixed in macOS Sonoma 14. Processing web content may lead to arbitrary code execution. Apple is aware of a report that this issue may have been actively exploited against versions of iOS before iOS 16.7.
- CVE-2024-3393HIGH 7.5KEVEPSS 27%
A Denial of Service vulnerability in the DNS Security feature of Palo Alto Networks PAN-OS software allows an unauthenticated attacker to send a malicious packet through the data plane of the firewall that reboots the firewall. Repeated attempts to trigger this condition will cause the firewall to enter maintenance mode.
- CVE-2023-41992HIGH 7.8KEVEPSS 3%
The issue was addressed with improved checks. This issue is fixed in macOS Monterey 12.7, iOS 16.7 and iPadOS 16.7, macOS Ventura 13.6. A local attacker may be able to elevate their privileges. Apple is aware of a report that this issue may have been actively exploited against versions of iOS before iOS 16.7.
- CVE-2026-31790HIGH 7.5Real · low riskEPSS 1%
Issue summary: Applications using RSASVE key encapsulation to establish a secret encryption key can send contents of an uninitialized memory buffer to a malicious peer. Impact summary: The uninitialized buffer might contain sensitive data from the previous execution of the application process which leads to sensitive data leakage to an attacker. RSA_public_encrypt() returns the number of bytes written on success and -1 on error. The affected code tests only whether the return value is non-zero. As a result, if RSA encryption fails, encapsulation can still return success to the caller, set the output lengths, and leave the caller to use the contents of the ciphertext buffer as if a valid KEM ciphertext had been produced. If applications use EVP_PKEY_encapsulate() with RSA/RSASVE on an attacker-supplied invalid RSA public key without first validating that key, then this may cause stale or uninitialized contents of the caller-provided ciphertext buffer to be disclosed to the attacker in place of the KEM ciphertext. As a workaround calling EVP_PKEY_public_check() or EVP_PKEY_public_check_quick() before EVP_PKEY_encapsulate() will mitigate the issue. The FIPS modules in 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, 3.3, 3.1 and 3.0 are affected by this issue.
- CVE-2025-69420HIGH 7.5Real · low riskEPSS 1%
Issue summary: A type confusion vulnerability exists in the TimeStamp Response verification code where an ASN1_TYPE union member is accessed without first validating the type, causing an invalid or NULL pointer dereference when processing a malformed TimeStamp Response file. Impact summary: An application calling TS_RESP_verify_response() with a malformed TimeStamp Response can be caused to dereference an invalid or NULL pointer when reading, resulting in a Denial of Service. The functions ossl_ess_get_signing_cert() and ossl_ess_get_signing_cert_v2() access the signing cert attribute value without validating its type. When the type is not V_ASN1_SEQUENCE, this results in accessing invalid memory through the ASN1_TYPE union, causing a crash. Exploiting this vulnerability requires an attacker to provide a malformed TimeStamp Response to an application that verifies timestamp responses. The TimeStamp protocol (RFC 3161) is not widely used and the impact of the exploit is just a Denial of Service. For these reasons the issue was assessed as Low severity. The FIPS modules in 3.5, 3.4, 3.3 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue, as the TimeStamp Response implementation is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary. OpenSSL 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, 3.3, 3.0 and 1.1.1 are vulnerable to this issue. OpenSSL 1.0.2 is not affected by this issue.
- CVE-2026-4686HIGH 7.5Real · low riskEPSS 1%
Incorrect boundary conditions in the Graphics: Canvas2D component. This vulnerability was fixed in Firefox 149, Firefox ESR 115.34, Firefox ESR 140.9, Thunderbird 149, and Thunderbird 140.9.