VulnerabilityPublished 11 Jun 2024Updated 1 Nov 2024

CVE-2024-26330: Kape CyberGhostVPN · Insufficiently Protected Credentials

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 15:59 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.6% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 48% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
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: 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: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
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 11 Jun 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

AI-suggested

To mitigate the risk posed by CVE-2024-26330, organizations and users should implement the following specific measures: 1) Monitor for and apply any official patches or updates from Kape as soon as they become available to ensure the vulnerability is remediated. 2) Until a patch is released, enforce a policy to fully terminate the CyberGhostVPN process immediately after logout to clear credentials from memory. 3) Limit user permissions and restrict the ability to perform memory dumps or run debugging tools on endpoints, reducing the likelihood of credential extraction. 4) Employ endpoint detection and response (EDR) solutions to monitor for suspicious memory dumping activities or unauthorized process inspections. 5) Educate users about the risks of leaving VPN clients running after logout and encourage proper session termination. 6) Consider using multi-factor authentication (MFA) for VPN access to reduce the impact of credential compromise. 7) Regularly audit and review VPN access logs for unusual login patterns that may indicate credential misuse. These targeted actions go beyond generic advice by focusing on process management, endpoint security controls, and user behavior to reduce exposure.

Description

An issue was discovered in Kape CyberGhostVPN 8.4.3.12823 on Windows. After a successful logout, user credentials remain in memory while the process is still open, and can be obtained by dumping the process memory and parsing it.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2024-26330 is the compromise of user credentials due to their persistence in process memory after logout. This exposure can lead to unauthorized access to VPN accounts, allowing attackers to impersonate legitimate users and potentially access sensitive internal networks or resources protected by the VPN. Although the vulnerability does not affect system integrity or availability, the confidentiality breach can have serious consequences, including data leakage, lateral movement within corporate networks, and undermining trust in VPN security. Organizations relying on CyberGhostVPN for secure communications may face increased risk of credential theft, especially in environments where endpoint security is weak or where attackers have local or remote access to user machines. The absence of known exploits in the wild reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate the threat, as attackers could develop exploits based on the disclosed vulnerability. This issue is particularly concerning for enterprises and individuals in high-risk sectors such as finance, government, healthcare, and critical infrastructure.

CWE-522Insufficiently Protected Credentials (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product transmits or stores authentication credentials, but it uses an insecure method that is susceptible to unauthorized interception and/or retrieval.
Architecture and Design
Use an appropriate security mechanism to protect the credentials.
Architecture and Design
Make appropriate use of cryptography to protect the credentials.
Implementation
Use industry standards to protect the credentials (e.g. LDAP, keystore, etc.).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V2.10.3 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.5 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.4 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Session Sidejacking (opens in a new tab)
Signature Spoofing by Key Theft (opens in a new tab)
Password Recovery Exploitation (opens in a new tab)
Kerberoasting (opens in a new tab)
Modify Existing Service (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

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 28 Feb 2026, 10:01 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-522

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats