VulnerabilityPublished 19 Mar 2024Updated 27 Aug 2024

CVE-2024-24042: ARRP · Directory Traversal

Affects ARRPSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.8 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 08:30 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.8High

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

EPSS: 1.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 71% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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

Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
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).
Availability: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; 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 impacted component (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).
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: 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 impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted 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.
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.
User Interaction: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 19 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubdevan-kerman/ARRP`pkg:github/devan-kerman/ARRP`Other threats	Affected <=0.8.1	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

1. Immediately restrict network access to the RuntimeResourcePackImpl component and the dumpDirect function to trusted users and systems only. 2. Implement strict input validation and sanitization at the application layer to prevent directory traversal attempts. 3. Monitor logs and network traffic for unusual access patterns or attempts to exploit directory traversal vulnerabilities. 4. Educate users about the risks of interacting with untrusted content or links that could trigger the vulnerability. 5. Deploy application-layer firewalls or intrusion prevention systems configured to detect and block directory traversal payloads targeting this component. 6. Prepare for rapid patch deployment once the vendor releases an official fix; maintain close communication with the vendor for updates. 7. Conduct regular security assessments and penetration tests focusing on directory traversal and remote code execution vectors. 8. Isolate critical systems running Devan-Kerman ARRP to limit lateral movement in case of compromise.

Description

Directory Traversal vulnerability in Devan-Kerman ARRP v.0.8.1 and before allows a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code via the dumpDirect in RuntimeResourcePackImpl component.

Impact

The impact of CVE-2024-24042 is significant due to the potential for remote code execution without requiring privileges. Successful exploitation can lead to full system compromise, including unauthorized access to sensitive data, modification or deletion of critical files, and disruption of service availability. This can result in data breaches, operational downtime, and loss of trust. Organizations relying on Devan-Kerman ARRP for critical infrastructure or business processes face increased risk of targeted attacks. The requirement for user interaction slightly reduces the attack surface but does not eliminate the threat, especially in environments where social engineering or phishing can be used to induce interaction. The absence of patches increases the window of vulnerability, potentially inviting attackers to develop exploits. Overall, the threat poses a high risk to confidentiality, integrity, and availability of affected systems worldwide.

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 26 Feb 2026, 10:20 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-22

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats