VulnerabilityPublished 1 May 2024Updated 16 Dec 2025

CVE-2024-29011: SonicWall GMS · Use of Hard-coded Password

Affects SonicWall GMSSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 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.

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

Attack Vector: Network
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: 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: 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 1 May 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

Immediate mitigation steps include identifying all SonicWall GMS instances running version 9.3.4 or earlier within the organization. Network-level controls such as firewall rules should be implemented to limit access to the GMS management interface strictly to trusted administrative IP addresses. Employ network segmentation to isolate GMS servers from general user networks and untrusted zones. Monitor logs and network traffic for unusual access attempts to the ECM endpoint, and implement intrusion detection/prevention systems with signatures tuned to detect exploitation attempts. Plan and prioritize upgrading to a patched version as soon as it becomes available. Additionally, review and strengthen overall access control policies around management systems and consider multi-factor authentication for administrative access where possible to reduce risk from other attack vectors.

Description

Use of hard-coded password in the GMS ECM endpoint leading to authentication bypass vulnerability. This issue affects GMS: 9.3.4 and earlier versions.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2024-29011 is substantial, particularly for those relying on SonicWall GMS for centralized security management. Unauthorized access to the GMS ECM endpoint compromises the confidentiality of network security configurations and potentially exposes sensitive security policies and device management data. This could facilitate lateral movement by attackers within corporate networks, increasing the risk of broader compromise. While the vulnerability does not directly affect system integrity or availability, the breach of confidentiality alone can lead to significant operational and reputational damage. Critical sectors such as finance, healthcare, government, and telecommunications in Europe, which often deploy SonicWall solutions, are at heightened risk. The lack of required privileges or user interaction lowers the barrier for exploitation, making it easier for remote attackers to target vulnerable systems. The absence of known exploits in the wild currently provides a window for proactive mitigation, but the threat landscape could evolve rapidly given the attractiveness of this vulnerability.

CWE-259Use of Hard-coded Password (opens in a new tab)
Variant weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product contains a hard-coded password, which it uses for its own inbound authentication or for outbound communication to external components.
Architecture and Design
For outbound authentication: store passwords outside of the code in a strongly-protected, encrypted configuration file or database that is protected from access by all outsiders, including other local users on the same system. Properly protect the key (CWE-320).
Architecture and Design
For inbound authentication: Rather than hard-code a default username and password for first time logins, utilize a "first login" mode that requires the user to enter a unique strong password.
Architecture and Design
Perform access control checks and limit which entities can access the feature that requires the hard-coded password. For example, a feature might only be enabled through the system console instead of through a network connection.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V2.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V2.6.2 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.5 (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

psirt.global.sonicwall.com/vuln-detail/SNWLID-2024-0007 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 23 Dec 2025, 17:19 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-259

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats