CVE-2024-23822VulnerabilityPublished 29 Jan 2024Updated 29 May 2025

CVE-2024-23822: sni Thruk · Path Traversal

Affects sni ThrukSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.4 Medium : upgrade to 3.12 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.4Medium

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

EPSS: 1.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 72% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 3.12

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

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

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: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
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: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on 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 29 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 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

Upgrade sni/Thruk to 3.12.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubsni/Thruk`pkg:github/sni/Thruk`Other threats	Affected <3.12	Fixed in 3.12

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

1. Upgrade all Thruk installations to version 3.12 or later, which contains the fix for this path traversal vulnerability. 2. Restrict access to the Thruk web interface to trusted networks and enforce strong authentication controls to limit exposure to authenticated users only. 3. Implement file system permissions and access controls to minimize the directories writable by the Thruk process, reducing the impact scope if exploitation occurs. 4. Monitor logs for unusual file upload activity or unexpected file creations in the Thruk server directories. 5. Employ web application firewalls (WAFs) with rules to detect and block path traversal attempts in HTTP requests. 6. Conduct regular security audits and penetration tests focusing on file upload functionalities to detect similar vulnerabilities early. 7. Isolate monitoring infrastructure from critical production systems to limit lateral movement in case of compromise.

Description

Thruk is a multibackend monitoring webinterface. Prior to 3.12, the Thruk web monitoring application presents a vulnerability in a file upload form that allows a threat actor to arbitrarily upload files to the server to any path they desire and have permissions for. This vulnerability is known as Path Traversal or Directory Traversal. Version 3.12 fixes the issue.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a risk to the integrity and availability of critical IT monitoring infrastructure. Thruk is often deployed in enterprise environments, data centers, and managed service providers to monitor network and server health. Successful exploitation could allow attackers to upload malicious scripts or binaries, potentially leading to service disruption, unauthorized code execution, or pivoting within the network. This could impact operational continuity, incident response capabilities, and compliance with regulations such as GDPR if monitoring data or alerting systems are compromised. Given the role of monitoring tools in maintaining security posture, exploitation could delay detection of other attacks or system failures. Organizations relying on Thruk versions prior to 3.12 should prioritize patching to mitigate these risks. The lack of known active exploitation reduces immediate threat but does not eliminate risk, especially in targeted attacks against critical infrastructure or managed service providers in Europe.

CWE-22Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #6OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but the product does not properly neutralize special elements within the pathname that can cause the pathname to resolve to a location that is outside of the restricted directory.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
Architecture and Design
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks…
Implementation · Input Validation
Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Path Traversal (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes and URL Encoding Combined to Bypass Validation Logic (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls (opens in a new tab)
Using Escaped Slashes in Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes in Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 8 Jul 2025, 01:55 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-22

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats