CVE-2024-0261VulnerabilityPublished 7 Jan 2024Updated 3 Jun 2025

CVE-2024-0261: Sentex FTPDMIN · Denial of Service

Affects Sentex FTPDMINSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 1.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 70% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: None
Availability: Low

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 7 Jan 2024
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 2026-10-25.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Sentex FTPDMIN	Affected =0.96	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Given the absence of an official patch, European organizations should implement the following specific mitigations: 1) Restrict external access to FTPDMIN servers by enforcing strict firewall rules and network segmentation to limit exposure only to trusted IP addresses and internal networks. 2) Monitor FTP server logs for unusual RNFR command activity or repeated connection attempts that may indicate exploitation attempts. 3) Implement rate limiting or connection throttling on the FTPDMIN service to reduce the risk of resource exhaustion from repeated malicious commands. 4) Consider deploying intrusion detection/prevention systems (IDS/IPS) with signatures or heuristics targeting anomalous FTP RNFR command patterns. 5) Evaluate alternative secure file transfer solutions that are actively maintained and patched, especially if FTPDMIN 0.96 is critical to operations. 6) Prepare incident response plans to quickly identify and mitigate DoS conditions caused by this vulnerability. 7) Stay updated with vendor advisories for any forthcoming patches or mitigations.

Description

A vulnerability has been found in Sentex FTPDMIN 0.96 and classified as problematic. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the component RNFR Command Handler. The manipulation leads to denial of service. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The identifier VDB-249817 was assigned to this vulnerability.

Impact

For European organizations using Sentex FTPDMIN 0.96, this vulnerability poses a risk of service disruption through denial of service attacks. FTP servers often facilitate file transfers critical to business operations, including data exchange with partners and customers. An attacker exploiting this vulnerability could cause FTPDMIN servers to crash or become unresponsive, interrupting file transfer workflows and potentially impacting business continuity. While this does not directly compromise data confidentiality or integrity, the availability impact could lead to operational delays, loss of productivity, and reputational damage, especially for organizations relying heavily on FTP for critical data exchange. Sectors such as finance, manufacturing, and logistics, which often use FTP for automated file transfers, could be particularly affected. Additionally, repeated or sustained DoS attacks could strain IT resources and increase incident response costs.

CWE-404Improper Resource Shutdown or Release (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: Medium
The product does not release or incorrectly releases a resource before it is made available for re-use.
Requirements · Language Selection
Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Implementation
It is good practice to be responsible for freeing all resources you allocate and to be consistent with how and where you free memory in a function. If you allocate memory that you intend to free upon completion of the function, you must be sure to free the memory at all exit points for that function including error…
Implementation
Memory should be allocated/freed using matching functions such as malloc/free, new/delete, and new[]/delete[].
Attack patterns
TCP Fragmentation (opens in a new tab)
UDP Fragmentation (opens in a new tab)
ICMP Fragmentation (opens in a new tab)
BlueSmacking (opens in a new tab)
Flooding (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 4 Jul 2025, 01:54 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-404

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats