CVE-2024-23765VulnerabilityPublished 26 Jun 2024Updated 14 Nov 2024

CVE-2024-23765: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.0 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.0Medium

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 4% 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:N/I:N/A:L

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

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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 26 Jun 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 this vulnerability, organizations should implement network segmentation to restrict access to the Anybus gateway's port 7412 service only to trusted devices and administrators. Monitoring network traffic for unusual or repeated requests to port 7412 can help detect attempted exploitation. Where possible, configure automated health checks and restart mechanisms for the gateway to minimize downtime in case of service unresponsiveness. Engage with HMS to obtain firmware updates or patches once available. Additionally, consider deploying redundant gateways or failover mechanisms to maintain operational continuity if one device becomes unresponsive. Document and train operational staff on manual restart procedures and incident response plans related to gateway outages. Finally, review and harden network access controls and firewall rules to limit exposure of the gateway's management and service ports.

Description

An issue was discovered on HMS Anybus X-Gateway AB7832-F 3 devices. The gateway exposes an unidentified service on port 7412 on the network. All the network services of the gateway become unresponsive after sending 85 requests to this port. The content and length of the frame does not matter. The device needs to be restarted to resume operations.

Impact

The primary impact of this vulnerability is a denial of service affecting the availability of the HMS Anybus X-Gateway AB7832-F 3 devices. Since these gateways are used to bridge industrial networks and protocols, their unavailability can disrupt communication between control systems, sensors, and actuators. This can lead to operational downtime, loss of monitoring and control capabilities, and potential safety risks in industrial environments. Although confidentiality and integrity are not affected, the loss of availability can have significant operational and financial consequences, especially in critical infrastructure, manufacturing plants, and industrial automation sectors. The requirement for a manual restart to recover increases downtime and operational burden. Organizations relying on these gateways without redundancy or automated recovery mechanisms are particularly vulnerable to sustained disruptions.

References

sensepost.com/blog/2024/targeting-an-industrial-protocol-gateway/ (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…