CVE-2024-20287VulnerabilityPublished 17 Jan 2024Updated 2 Jun 2025

CVE-2024-20287: Cisco Business Wireless Access Point Software · Argument Injection

Affects Cisco Business Wireless Access Point SoftwareSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 07:57 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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

EPSS: 1.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 75% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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: High: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable component that could affect component-wide settings and files.
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: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 17 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 2026-10-26.

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
Cisco Cisco Business Wireless Access Point Software	Affected =1.0.1.5 =1.0.0.10 =1.0.0.9 =1.1.2.3 =1.2.0.2 =1.2.0.3 =1.2.1.3 =1.3.0.3 =1.3.0.4 =1.3.0.6 =1.3.0.7	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

European organizations should implement a multi-layered mitigation approach beyond generic patching advice: 1) Immediately inventory all Cisco WAP371 devices and verify software versions against the affected list. 2) Restrict administrative access to the management interface by enforcing network segmentation and limiting access to trusted IP addresses or VPN-only connections. 3) Implement strong multi-factor authentication (MFA) for all administrative accounts to reduce the risk of credential compromise. 4) Monitor network traffic and device logs for unusual HTTP requests or command execution patterns indicative of exploitation attempts. 5) Employ network intrusion detection/prevention systems (IDS/IPS) with signatures or heuristics tuned to detect command injection attempts targeting Cisco management interfaces. 6) Until patches are available, consider temporarily disabling remote management or using out-of-band management solutions. 7) Educate administrators on phishing and credential security to prevent account compromise. 8) Regularly update device firmware once Cisco releases patches addressing this vulnerability. 9) Conduct penetration testing and vulnerability assessments focusing on wireless infrastructure to identify and remediate related weaknesses.

Description

A vulnerability in the web-based management interface of the Cisco WAP371 Wireless-AC/N Dual Radio Access Point (AP) with Single Point Setup could allow an authenticated, remote attacker to perform command injection attacks against an affected device. This vulnerability is due to improper validation of user-supplied input. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending crafted HTTP requests to the web-based management interface of an affected system. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to execute arbitrary commands with root privileges on the device. To exploit this vulnerability, the attacker must have valid administrative credentials for the device.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a significant risk primarily to network infrastructure security. The Cisco WAP371 is commonly deployed in small to medium business environments and branch offices, which are prevalent across Europe. Exploitation could lead to full compromise of the affected access point, enabling attackers to execute arbitrary commands with root privileges. This can result in unauthorized access to network traffic, interception or manipulation of data, lateral movement within the corporate network, and potential disruption of wireless services. Given the high confidentiality and integrity impact, sensitive corporate data and communications could be exposed or altered. Although availability impact is not indicated, the attacker could still disrupt network operations indirectly. The requirement for administrative credentials limits exploitation to insider threats or attackers who have already compromised credentials, but phishing or credential theft are common attack vectors. The lack of known exploits in the wild suggests limited immediate risk, but the medium severity score and root-level command execution potential warrant prompt attention to prevent escalation and lateral movement in European enterprise networks.

CWE-88Improper Neutralization of Argument Delimiters in a Command ('Argument Injection') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product constructs a string for a command to be executed by a separate component in another control sphere, but it does not properly delimit the intended arguments, options, or switches within that command string.
Implementation · Parameterization
Where possible, avoid building a single string that contains the command and its arguments. Some languages or frameworks have functions that support specifying independent arguments, e.g. as an array, which is used to automatically perform the appropriate quoting or escaping while building the command.
Architecture and Design · Input Validation
Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter your product: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, request headers as well as content, URL components, e-mail, files, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
SQL Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention in Java (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Flash Parameter Injection (opens in a new tab)
Using Meta-characters in E-mail Headers to Inject Malicious Payloads (opens in a new tab)
HTTP Parameter Pollution (HPP) (opens in a new tab)
OS Command Injection (opens in a new tab)
Parameter Injection (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

sec.cloudapps.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-sb-wap-inject-bHStWgXO (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 3 Jul 2025, 16:59 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-88

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats