CVE-2024-28754VulnerabilityPublished 8 Mar 2024Updated 1 Nov 2024

CVE-2024-28754: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High · fixed in 3.0.10 : patch affected systems soon.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 07:57 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

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

EPSS: 0.8% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 58% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 3.0.10

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

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

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: 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: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

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

1. Immediately restrict network access to RaspAP web interfaces by implementing firewall rules or network segmentation to limit exposure to trusted networks only. 2. Monitor network traffic for unusual or malformed HTTP requests targeting RaspAP endpoints to detect potential exploitation attempts. 3. Disable or uninstall RaspAP on devices where it is not essential to reduce the attack surface. 4. For critical deployments, consider replacing RaspAP with alternative, actively maintained wireless access point management solutions until a patch is released. 5. Maintain physical security controls to prevent unauthorized access to devices, as recovery from this vulnerability requires physical intervention. 6. Stay informed on updates from RaspAP developers and apply patches promptly once available. 7. Implement network-level intrusion detection/prevention systems (IDS/IPS) with signatures or heuristics to detect exploitation attempts once signatures become available. 8. Regularly back up device configurations and data to facilitate recovery in case of device bricking. 9. Educate network administrators about this vulnerability and the importance of limiting exposure of management interfaces.

Description

RaspAP (aka raspap-webgui) through 3.0.9 allows remote attackers to cause a persistent denial of service (bricking) via a crafted request.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2024-28754 is a persistent denial of service that bricks the affected device, causing complete loss of availability. For organizations relying on RaspAP-configured Raspberry Pi devices as wireless access points or IoT gateways, this can result in network outages, loss of connectivity, and operational disruption. The persistent nature of the denial of service means that remote recovery is not possible, requiring physical access to the device for remediation, which can be costly and time-consuming. This can be especially problematic in remote or distributed environments where Raspberry Pi devices are deployed. While confidentiality and integrity are not directly impacted, the loss of availability can indirectly affect business continuity and service delivery. The vulnerability's ease of exploitation and lack of authentication requirements increase the risk of opportunistic attacks, potentially by automated scanning or malware. Although no active exploitation is currently known, the high severity score and impact on critical network infrastructure components make this a significant threat to organizations using RaspAP.

References

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

Community reviews

Loading reviews…