CVE-2024-23599VulnerabilityPublished 16 Sep 2024Updated 3 Nov 2025

CVE-2024-23599: Seamless Firmware Updates for some IntelÂ® reference platforms · denial of service

Affects Seamless Firmware Updates for some IntelÂ® reference platformsSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.3 High.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

8.3High

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 2% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:H/SA:H

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: High
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None
Vulnerable system integrity: High
Vulnerable system availability: High
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: High
Subsequent system availability: High

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

Attack Vector: Local: The vulnerable system 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 through terminal emulation (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., using social engineering techniques to trick a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
Attack Complexity: Low: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: High: The attacker requires privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable system allowing full access to the vulnerable system’s settings and files.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system 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 vulnerable system. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the vulnerable system.
Vulnerable system availability: High: There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the Vulnerable System; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the Vulnerable System (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system 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 Subsequent System. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the Subsequent System.
Subsequent system availability: High: There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the Subsequent System; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the Subsequent System (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 16 Sep 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

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2024-23599, European organizations should: 1) Monitor Intel's official channels for firmware updates or patches addressing this vulnerability and apply them promptly once available. 2) Restrict local administrative access strictly to trusted personnel and enforce strong authentication and access controls to minimize the risk of insider exploitation. 3) Implement robust logging and monitoring of firmware update activities to detect anomalies or failed update attempts indicative of exploitation. 4) Use endpoint protection solutions capable of detecting suspicious local privilege escalations or race condition exploitation attempts. 5) Where feasible, isolate critical systems physically or logically to limit local access. 6) Conduct regular security audits and penetration testing focusing on privileged user activities and firmware update processes. 7) Educate system administrators about the risks associated with privileged access and the importance of following secure update procedures. 8) Consider deploying hardware-based security features such as Intel Boot Guard or Trusted Platform Module (TPM) to enhance firmware integrity verification. These measures collectively reduce the likelihood and impact of exploitation beyond generic patching advice.

Description

Race condition in Seamless Firmware Updates for some Intel(R) reference platforms may allow a privileged user to potentially enable denial of service via local access.

Impact

For European organizations, the primary impact of CVE-2024-23599 is the potential denial of service on systems using affected Intel reference platforms during firmware updates. This can disrupt business continuity, especially in environments relying on automated or remote firmware management. Critical infrastructure sectors such as energy, telecommunications, and finance, which often use Intel hardware extensively, could experience outages or degraded performance. The requirement for privileged local access limits remote exploitation but raises concerns about insider threats or compromised administrative accounts. The disruption of firmware updates can delay security patch deployment, increasing exposure to other vulnerabilities. Additionally, organizations with strict uptime requirements or regulatory compliance mandates (e.g., GDPR, NIS Directive) may face operational and legal challenges if the vulnerability is exploited. The impact on confidentiality is minimal, but integrity and availability are significantly affected, potentially leading to system downtime and loss of trust in update mechanisms.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…