CVE-2024-25075VulnerabilityPublished 2 Apr 2024Updated 21 Nov 2024

CVE-2024-25075: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.1 Medium · fixed in 1.41.1 : update Softing uaToolkit Embedded when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 07:57 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.1Medium

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 6% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Affects: Softing uaToolkit Embedded before 1.41.1
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.41.1

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

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
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: 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: 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 2 Apr 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

AI-suggested

Organizations should upgrade Softing uaToolkit Embedded to version 1.41.1 or later once available, as this version addresses the vulnerability. If you cannot patch yet, implement strict access controls to limit local access to devices running the vulnerable software, including network segmentation and physical security measures. Monitor device memory usage and system logs for signs of abnormal memory consumption or repeated publish requests with low MaxNotificationPerPublish values. If possible, configure subscriptions to avoid very low MaxNotificationPerPublish parameters or validate input parameters to prevent triggering the vulnerability. Employ intrusion detection systems (IDS) or anomaly detection tools tailored for industrial protocols to identify suspicious activity. Regularly review and update incident response plans to include scenarios involving denial of service in embedded and industrial systems. Engage with Softing support or vendor channels for timely updates and advisories.

Description

An issue was discovered in Softing uaToolkit Embedded before 1.41.1. When a subscription with a very low MaxNotificationPerPublish parameter is created, a publish response is mishandled, leading to memory consumption. When that happens often enough, the device will be out of memory, i.e., a denial of service.

Impact

The primary impact of this vulnerability is a denial of service (DoS) condition caused by memory exhaustion. For organizations relying on Softing uaToolkit Embedded in industrial control systems, embedded devices, or automation infrastructure, this could lead to device crashes or unresponsiveness, disrupting operational technology (OT) environments. Such disruptions could halt manufacturing processes, degrade system reliability, or cause safety systems to fail, depending on the deployment context. Since the attack requires local access, the risk is somewhat mitigated by physical or network access controls, but insider threats or attackers who gain local footholds could exploit this vulnerability. The lack of confidentiality impact reduces the risk of data breaches, but integrity and availability impacts could have significant operational consequences. The absence of known exploits suggests limited current threat activity, but the vulnerability should be addressed proactively to avoid future exploitation.

References

industrial.softing.com/fileadmin/psirt/downloads/2024/syt-2024-2.html (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…