CVE-2024-22077VulnerabilityPublished 20 Mar 2024Updated 3 Aug 2024

CVE-2024-22077: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 41% 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:L/I:N/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: None
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: 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: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 20 Mar 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

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2024-22077, organizations should immediately audit the file permissions on the SQLite database files within Elspec G5 devices to ensure they are restricted to authorized system processes and administrators only. Network access to these devices should be tightly controlled using firewalls, VLAN segmentation, and access control lists to limit exposure to trusted hosts. Implement strict role-based access controls (RBAC) and ensure that only necessary personnel have administrative privileges on the devices. Monitor device logs and network traffic for unusual access patterns or attempts to read the database files. Since no official patches are currently available, consider deploying host-based intrusion detection systems (HIDS) or endpoint protection solutions capable of alerting on unauthorized file access. Engage with the vendor for updates or patches and plan for timely deployment once available. Additionally, incorporate these devices into the broader industrial control system security framework, including regular security assessments and penetration testing focused on file permissions and access controls. Document and enforce secure configuration baselines for all critical ICS components.

Description

An issue was discovered in Elspec G5 digital fault recorder versions 1.1.4.15 and before. The SQLite database file has weak permissions.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2024-22077 is the potential unauthorized disclosure of sensitive operational data stored in the SQLite database of Elspec G5 digital fault recorders. This could allow attackers to gain insights into the electrical grid’s fault conditions, configurations, or operational parameters, which may be leveraged for further targeted attacks or espionage. Although the vulnerability does not directly affect system integrity or availability, the confidentiality breach could undermine trust in the device’s security and lead to indirect operational risks. For organizations managing critical infrastructure, such as power utilities, exposure of fault recorder data could reveal vulnerabilities or operational patterns to adversaries, increasing the risk of sabotage or disruption. The ease of exploitation over the network without authentication raises the threat level, especially in environments with insufficient network segmentation or access controls. The lack of known exploits suggests limited current exploitation but does not preclude future attacks. Overall, the vulnerability poses a moderate risk to confidentiality with potential cascading effects on operational security in industrial environments.

CWE-280Improper Handling of Insufficient Permissions or Privileges (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A10:2025: Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions (opens in a new tab)
The product does not handle or incorrectly handles when it has insufficient privileges to access resources or functionality as specified by their permissions. This may cause it to follow unexpected code paths that may leave the product in an invalid state.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area.
Implementation
Always check to see if you have successfully accessed a resource or system functionality, and use proper error handling if it is unsuccessful. Do this even when you are operating in a highly privileged mode, because errors or environmental conditions might still cause a failure.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Logging (opens in a new tab)
Error Handling (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

elspec-ltd.com/support/security-advisories/ (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 28 Feb 2026, 09:08 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-280

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats