VulnerabilityPublished 30 Jan 2024Updated 29 May 2025

CVE-2024-22647: SEO Panel · Observable Discrepancy

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 13:47 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 46% 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 30 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 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 or the CVSS exploit maturity 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
n/a n/a	Affected =4.10.0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

To mitigate this vulnerability effectively, organizations should implement consistent error messaging during authentication to prevent user enumeration. This can be achieved by standardizing all authentication failure responses regardless of username validity. Additionally, deploying account lockout mechanisms or rate limiting on authentication attempts can reduce the feasibility of brute-force attacks. Enforcing strong password policies and encouraging multi-factor authentication (MFA) for all user accounts will further reduce the risk of credential compromise. Network-level protections such as Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) can be configured to detect and block suspicious authentication patterns indicative of enumeration or brute-force attempts. Regular monitoring and alerting on authentication failures and unusual login patterns will help detect exploitation attempts early. Finally, organizations should stay updated with vendor advisories for any forthcoming patches and apply them promptly once released.

Description

An user enumeration vulnerability was found in SEO Panel 4.10.0. This issue occurs during user authentication, where a difference in error messages could allow an attacker to determine if a username is valid or not, enabling a brute-force attack with valid usernames.

Impact

For European organizations using SEO Panel 4.10.0, this vulnerability poses a risk primarily related to information disclosure and subsequent brute-force attacks. By enumerating valid usernames, attackers can focus their efforts on credential guessing or password spraying attacks, potentially leading to unauthorized access if weak or reused passwords are present. This can compromise the confidentiality of user accounts and potentially lead to further exploitation depending on the privileges of compromised accounts. While the vulnerability itself does not directly impact system integrity or availability, the downstream effects of successful brute-force attacks could include unauthorized data access, defacement, or service disruption. European organizations with public-facing SEO Panel installations are particularly at risk, especially those with inadequate account lockout policies or weak password enforcement. The medium severity score suggests that while the vulnerability is not critical, it should be addressed promptly to prevent escalation. Additionally, the lack of patches increases the window of exposure. Given the GDPR and other data protection regulations in Europe, unauthorized access resulting from this vulnerability could also lead to regulatory and reputational consequences.

CWE-203Observable Discrepancy (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product behaves differently or sends different responses under different circumstances in a way that is observable to an unauthorized actor.
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
Ensure that error messages only contain minimal details that are useful to the intended audience and no one else. The messages need to strike the balance between being too cryptic (which can confuse users) or being too detailed (which may reveal more than intended).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Error Handling (opens in a new tab)
Logging (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.4 (opens in a new tab)
V14.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
V7.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Black Box Reverse Engineering (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

github.com/cassis-sec/CVE/tree/main/2024/CVE-2024-22647 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 8 Jul 2025, 01:41 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-203

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats