VulnerabilityPublished 20 Mar 2024Updated 5 Dec 2024

CVE-2024-22085: Incorrect Default Permissions

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.2 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 09:15 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.2Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 13% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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

Attack Vector: Local: The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Either: the attacker exploits the vulnerability by accessing the target system locally (e.g., keyboard, console), or remotely (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., tricking a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
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: 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: 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 26 Oct 2026.

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-2024-22085, organizations should immediately audit file permissions on Elspec G5 devices to ensure the shadow file is not world-readable. Restrict access to the shadow file to only necessary system processes and administrators by setting appropriate Unix file permissions (e.g., 600 or more restrictive). Implement strict physical and network access controls to limit local access to authorized personnel only. Monitor device logs and access patterns for any suspicious activity indicating attempts to access sensitive files. If available, apply firmware or software updates from Elspec that address this permission misconfiguration. In the absence of official patches, consider deploying host-based intrusion detection systems (HIDS) to alert on unauthorized file access. Additionally, enforce strong password policies and consider multi-factor authentication where possible to reduce the risk of credential compromise. Regularly review and update device configurations as part of a broader industrial control system security program.

Description

An issue was discovered in Elspec G5 digital fault recorder versions 1.1.4.15 and before. The shadow file is world readable.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2024-22085 is the potential disclosure of hashed password data from the shadow file on Elspec G5 digital fault recorders. If an attacker gains local access to the device, they can read this file and attempt offline password cracking, potentially leading to unauthorized access to the device or related systems. This compromises confidentiality and could enable lateral movement within critical infrastructure networks. While the vulnerability does not affect system integrity or availability directly, compromised credentials could allow attackers to manipulate device configurations or disrupt monitoring functions. Given that digital fault recorders are often deployed in electrical utilities and industrial environments, exploitation could indirectly impact operational reliability and safety. The requirement for local access limits the attack surface but does not eliminate risk, especially in environments where physical or network access controls are weak. Organizations relying on these devices could face increased risk of credential theft and subsequent targeted attacks against critical infrastructure.

CWE-276Incorrect Default Permissions (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumOWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
During installation, installed file permissions are set to allow anyone to modify those files.
Architecture and Design · Operation
The architecture needs to access and modification attributes for files to only those users who actually require those actions.
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.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Access Control (opens in a new tab)
Authorization Testing Automation (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
V13.4.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs (opens in a new tab)
Directory Indexing (opens in a new tab)
Web Server Logs Tampering (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 26 Feb 2026, 10:04 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-276

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats