CVE-2024-27707VulnerabilityPublished 7 Mar 2024Updated 6 Aug 2024

CVE-2024-27707: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.3 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 25% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: Low
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: 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: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 7 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 2026-10-25.

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

1. Restrict and strictly validate all SVG file uploads to the Huly Platform, employing allowlists for file types and scanning for malicious content within SVG files. 2. Implement robust input validation and sanitization on the server side to prevent SSRF payloads embedded in SVG files from triggering unintended requests. 3. Enforce the principle of least privilege for users who can upload files, limiting access to only those necessary. 4. Monitor logs and network traffic for unusual outbound requests originating from the Huly Platform server, which may indicate SSRF exploitation attempts. 5. Isolate the Huly Platform server within a segmented network zone with restricted outbound connectivity to limit SSRF impact. 6. Engage with the vendor (hcengineering) for updates and patches addressing this vulnerability and apply them promptly once available. 7. Consider deploying Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) with custom rules to detect and block SSRF patterns related to SVG uploads. 8. Conduct regular security assessments and penetration tests focusing on file upload functionalities to detect similar vulnerabilities early.

Description

Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in hcengineering Huly Platform v.0.6.202 allows attackers to run arbitrary code via upload of crafted SVG file.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2024-27707 is on the integrity of affected systems, as attackers can execute arbitrary code on the server hosting the Huly Platform. This could lead to unauthorized changes to system configurations, data manipulation, or deployment of additional malware. Although confidentiality and availability impacts are not directly indicated, the ability to run arbitrary code can be a stepping stone to broader attacks, including data exfiltration or denial of service. Organizations relying on the Huly Platform for critical industrial or engineering operations may face operational disruptions or loss of trust in system integrity. The requirement for some privileges to exploit limits the attack surface to authenticated or partially trusted users, but the lack of user interaction needed means exploitation can be automated once access is gained. The absence of known exploits in the wild suggests limited current threat activity, but the vulnerability's nature warrants proactive mitigation to prevent future exploitation.

CWE-918Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessCWE Top 25 (2025): #22OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The web server receives a URL or similar request from an upstream component and retrieves the contents of this URL, but it does not sufficiently ensure that the request is being sent to the expected destination.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Server Side Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Scripting Prevention (opens in a new tab)
DOM based XSS Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.6.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.2.6 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Server Side Request Forgery (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

github.com/b-hermes/vulnerability-research/tree/main/CVE-2024-27707 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 26 Feb 2026, 11:11 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats