VulnerabilityPublished 6 Feb 2024Updated 5 Jun 2025

CVE-2024-24254: PX4 Autopilot · Race Condition

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.2 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 13:47 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.2Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 29% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
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: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
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 6 Feb 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
GitHubpx4/PX4-Autopilot`pkg:github/px4/PX4-Autopilot`Other threats	Affected <=1.14	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

European organizations should implement the following specific mitigations: 1) Immediately audit PX4 Autopilot versions in use and identify any deployments running version 1.14 or earlier. 2) Monitor PX4 project repositories and security advisories for official patches addressing CVE-2024-24254 and apply updates promptly once available. 3) Until patches are released, implement operational controls such as restricting network access to drone control interfaces to trusted personnel and networks only, minimizing exposure to remote exploitation. 4) Introduce additional validation and verification steps in mission planning workflows to detect overlapping geofences or conflicting mission routes before deployment. 5) Employ runtime monitoring and anomaly detection on drone telemetry to identify unexpected flight behaviors indicative of exploitation. 6) Engage with drone manufacturers or integrators to confirm if customized PX4 versions are affected and request vendor-specific mitigations or updates. 7) Train drone operators on the risks of race conditions in mission planning and enforce strict procedures for mission data handling. These measures go beyond generic advice by focusing on operational controls, validation, and vendor engagement tailored to PX4-based drone environments.

Description

PX4 Autopilot 1.14 and earlier, due to the lack of synchronization mechanism for loading geofence data, has a Race Condition vulnerability in the geofence.cpp and mission_feasibility_checker.cpp. This will result in the drone uploading overlapping geofences and mission routes.

Impact

For European organizations utilizing PX4-based drones, especially in sectors such as agriculture, infrastructure inspection, delivery services, and public safety, this vulnerability poses a risk of operational disruption. Overlapping geofences and mission routes can cause drones to inadvertently enter restricted or hazardous areas, violating regulatory compliance and potentially causing physical damage or safety incidents. This could lead to financial losses, reputational damage, and regulatory penalties under frameworks like the EU Drone Regulation (EU) 2019/947. Additionally, critical infrastructure monitoring or emergency response drones could be compromised in their mission integrity, impacting public safety. Although the vulnerability does not directly expose confidential data, the integrity and availability of drone missions are affected, which can have cascading effects on dependent systems and services. The medium severity suggests a moderate risk, but the impact could be significant in safety-critical applications.

CWE-362Concurrent Execution using Shared Resource with Improper Synchronization ('Race Condition') (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product contains a concurrent code sequence that requires temporary, exclusive access to a shared resource, but a timing window exists in which the shared resource can be modified by another code sequence operating concurrently.
Architecture and Design
In languages that support it, use synchronization primitives. Only wrap these around critical code to minimize the impact on performance.
Architecture and Design
Use thread-safe capabilities such as the data access abstraction in Spring.
Architecture and Design
Minimize the usage of shared resources in order to remove as much complexity as possible from the control flow and to reduce the likelihood of unexpected conditions occurring.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.11.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Leveraging Time-of-Check and Time-of-Use (TOCTOU) Race Conditions (opens in a new tab)
Leveraging Race Conditions (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 7 Jul 2025, 16:57 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-362

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats