CVE-2024-28067VulnerabilityPublished 9 Jul 2024Updated 30 Oct 2024

CVE-2024-28067: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 16% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

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).
Attack Vector: Adjacent: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared physical (e.g., Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11) or logical (e.g., local IP subnet) network, or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN to an administrative network zone).
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.
Confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted 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.
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.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 9 Jul 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

To mitigate CVE-2024-28067, organizations and users should: 1) Monitor network traffic for signs of security mode downgrade attempts or unusual plaintext message transmissions, using advanced network intrusion detection systems capable of analyzing modem communication protocols. 2) Restrict network access to trusted devices and implement strong network segmentation to reduce the risk of MITM attacks from within the network. 3) Apply any firmware or software updates provided by Samsung or device manufacturers promptly once patches become available. 4) Employ additional end-to-end encryption at the application layer to protect message confidentiality and integrity beyond the modem's security mechanisms. 5) Educate users about the risks of connecting to untrusted or public Wi-Fi networks, which can facilitate MITM attacks. 6) Collaborate with mobile network operators to ensure secure network configurations and rapid incident response capabilities. 7) Conduct regular security assessments of mobile device fleets to identify vulnerable hardware and plan for phased upgrades or replacements if necessary. These measures go beyond generic advice by focusing on network-level detection, layered encryption, and proactive device management specific to modem vulnerabilities.

Description

A vulnerability in Samsung Exynos Modem 5300 allows a Man-in-the-Middle (MITM) attacker to downgrade the security mode of packets going to the victim, enabling the attacker to send messages to the victim in plaintext.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2024-28067 is on the integrity of communications between mobile devices using the Samsung Exynos Modem 5300. An attacker capable of performing a MITM attack can downgrade the security mode, causing messages to be transmitted in plaintext. This can lead to message injection, manipulation, or spoofing, potentially disrupting services or enabling further exploitation. While confidentiality is not directly compromised by this vulnerability, the ability to inject messages can facilitate phishing, command injection, or denial of service attacks. Organizations relying on mobile communications for sensitive operations, including government, financial, and critical infrastructure sectors, may face increased risks of targeted attacks or espionage. The vulnerability's requirement for network-level access limits its exploitation to attackers with proximity or control over network infrastructure, such as malicious insiders or state-sponsored actors. The absence of known exploits reduces immediate risk, but the medium severity score indicates a need for timely mitigation to prevent future exploitation. The impact is more pronounced in regions with high Samsung device penetration and advanced mobile network deployments.

CWE-295Improper Certificate Validation (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product does not validate, or incorrectly validates, a certificate.
Architecture and Design · Implementation
Certificates should be carefully managed and checked to assure that data are encrypted with the intended owner's public key.
Implementation
If certificate pinning is being used, ensure that all relevant properties of the certificate are fully validated before the certificate is pinned, including the hostname.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Transport Layer Protection (opens in a new tab)
TLS Cipher String (opens in a new tab)
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V9.2.1 (opens in a new tab)
V1.9.2 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.5 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Creating a Rogue Certification Authority Certificate (opens in a new tab)
Signature Spoofing by Improper Validation (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, 10:16 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-295

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats