VulnerabilityPublished 15 Apr 2024Updated 14 Nov 2024

CVE-2024-30656

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.1 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 10:12 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.1Medium

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 37% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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

Attack Vector: Local: The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Either: the attacker exploits the vulnerability by accessing the target system locally (e.g., keyboard, console), or remotely (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., tricking a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
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: 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: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 15 Apr 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

To mitigate CVE-2024-30656, organizations and users should first monitor Fireboltt's official channels for firmware updates or patches addressing this vulnerability. Until a patch is available, limiting physical and wireless access to the wristphone is critical. Deploy wireless intrusion detection systems (WIDS) to monitor for suspicious deauthentication frames in environments where these devices are used. Network segmentation can isolate wristphone traffic to reduce exposure. Employing Wi-Fi Protected Access (WPA3) where supported may help, although this vulnerability exploits deauth frames which are part of the protocol itself. Educate users to recognize signs of device instability or connectivity issues that may indicate an attack. For high-security environments, consider alternative devices with stronger wireless security or additional protective controls. Finally, maintain incident response plans that include IoT and wearable device disruptions to ensure rapid recovery.

Description

An issue in Fireboltt Dream Wristphone BSW202_FB_AAC_v2.0_20240110-20240110-1956 allows attackers to cause a Denial of Service (DoS) via a crafted deauth frame.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2024-30656 is the disruption of device availability through a Denial of Service attack. For individual users, this can mean loss of critical wristphone functionality such as notifications, health monitoring, or communication features. For organizations deploying these devices in operational environments, such as workforce wearables or health monitoring, the DoS could interrupt workflows or safety monitoring. The integrity of the device's wireless connection is also compromised, potentially leading to repeated disconnections or instability. Since the attack requires local wireless proximity, the scope is limited to environments where attackers can physically approach the device. There is no direct impact on data confidentiality, but service disruption can degrade user trust and operational reliability. The absence of known exploits reduces immediate risk, but the medium severity score suggests that motivated attackers could leverage this vulnerability in targeted scenarios.

References

github.com/Yashodhanvivek/Firebolt-wristphone-vulnerability (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…