CVE-2024-28753VulnerabilityPublished 8 Mar 2024Updated 14 Nov 2024

CVE-2024-28753: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium · fixed in 3.0.10 : update affected systems when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 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 52% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 3.0.10

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

Attack Vector: Adjacent
Attack Complexity: Low
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: 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).
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: 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 8 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 2026-10-26.

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

To mitigate CVE-2024-28753, organizations should implement the following specific measures: 1) Restrict network access to the RaspAP web interface by using firewall rules or network segmentation to limit access only to trusted administrators and management networks. 2) Disable or remove RaspAP if it is not essential to reduce the attack surface. 3) Monitor network traffic for unusual or suspicious HTTP requests targeting the RaspAP interface, especially those attempting to access system files. 5) Consider deploying additional authentication mechanisms or VPN access to protect the management interface from unauthorized remote access. 6) Regularly audit and review device configurations and user accounts to detect any anomalies that could indicate exploitation attempts. 7) Educate administrators about the risks of exposing management interfaces and the importance of secure configuration practices. These targeted actions go beyond generic advice by focusing on access control, monitoring, and proactive patch management specific to RaspAP deployments.

Description

RaspAP (aka raspap-webgui) through 3.0.9 allows remote attackers to read the /etc/passwd file via a crafted request.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2024-28753 is unauthorized disclosure of sensitive system information, specifically the contents of the /etc/passwd file. While this file does not contain password hashes on modern Linux systems, it reveals user account names and system configuration details that can aid attackers in further reconnaissance and targeted attacks. Organizations deploying RaspAP on Raspberry Pi or similar devices for wireless access point management may face increased risk of targeted attacks if adversaries gain network access. This vulnerability could be leveraged as a stepping stone for lateral movement or privilege escalation attempts by revealing user accounts and system structure. Although it does not directly compromise system integrity or availability, the information disclosure can weaken overall security posture and facilitate more sophisticated attacks. The threat is particularly relevant for environments with weak network segmentation or exposed RaspAP interfaces accessible from untrusted networks. Given the widespread use of Raspberry Pi devices in educational, industrial, and home automation contexts, the vulnerability could affect a broad range of sectors globally.

References

dustri.org/b/carrot-disclosure.html (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…