VulnerabilityPublished 13 May 2024Updated 3 Nov 2025

CVE-2024-26306: iperf · Covert Timing Channel

Affects iperfSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.9 Medium · fixed in 3.17 : update iperf when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 13:47 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.9Medium

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

EPSS: 1.0% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 65% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 3.17, 3.2.0

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

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

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: 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: 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: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 13 May 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

Upgrade esnet/iperf to 3.17; openssl/openssl to 3.2.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubesnet/iperf`pkg:github/esnet/iperf`Other threats	Affected <3.17	Fixed in 3.17
GitHubopenssl/openssl`pkg:github/openssl/openssl`Other threats	Affected <3.2.0	Fixed in 3.2.0

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

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2024-26306, European organizations should: 1) Upgrade iPerf3 to version 3.17 or later, which addresses the vulnerability. 2) Upgrade OpenSSL to version 3.2.0 or later to eliminate the underlying timing side-channel in RSA decryption. 3) If immediate upgrades are not feasible, disable RSA authentication on iPerf3 servers or switch to alternative authentication mechanisms that do not rely on vulnerable RSA operations. 4) Monitor network traffic for unusual volumes of decryption requests to iPerf3 servers, which may indicate exploitation attempts. 5) Implement network segmentation and restrict access to iPerf3 servers to trusted hosts only, reducing the attack surface. 6) Conduct regular credential audits and rotate credentials used in iPerf3 authentication to limit exposure duration. 7) Employ timing attack resistant cryptographic libraries or configurations where possible. 8) Educate network administrators about this vulnerability and ensure patch management processes prioritize affected components. These steps go beyond generic advice by focusing on specific software versions, configuration changes, and monitoring tailored to this vulnerability.

Description

iPerf3 before 3.17, when used with OpenSSL before 3.2.0 as a server with RSA authentication, allows a timing side channel in RSA decryption operations. This side channel could be sufficient for an attacker to recover credential plaintext. It requires the attacker to send a large number of messages for decryption, as described in "Everlasting ROBOT: the Marvin Attack" by Hubert Kario.

Impact

For European organizations, the primary impact of CVE-2024-26306 is the potential compromise of plaintext credentials used in RSA authentication on iPerf3 servers. This can lead to unauthorized access to network performance testing infrastructure or other systems relying on these credentials, potentially exposing sensitive network data or enabling lateral movement within networks. While the vulnerability does not directly affect system integrity or availability, the confidentiality breach can have cascading effects, including exposure of internal network configurations or credentials reused elsewhere. Organizations in sectors with critical infrastructure, telecommunications, and network service providers are particularly at risk due to their reliance on network performance tools like iPerf3. The requirement for high-volume message exchanges and precise timing measurements may limit exploitation to targeted attacks rather than widespread automated campaigns. However, attackers with network access and sufficient resources could leverage this vulnerability to gain footholds in enterprise environments. The medium severity rating suggests that while the threat is significant, it is not trivial to exploit, but organizations should not underestimate the risk given the potential for credential theft.

CWE-385Covert Timing Channel (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: Medium
Covert timing channels convey information by modulating some aspect of system behavior over time, so that the program receiving the information can observe system behavior and infer protected information.
Architecture and Design
Whenever possible, specify implementation strategies that do not introduce time variances in operations.
Implementation
Often one can artificially manipulate the time which operations take or -- when operations occur -- can remove information from the attacker.
Implementation
It is reasonable to add artificial or random delays so that the amount of CPU time consumed is independent of the action being taken by the application.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Cryptographic Storage (opens in a new tab)
Key Management (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V6.2.8 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Cross-Domain Search Timing (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 3 Nov 2025, 22:11 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-385

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats