CVE-2024-31966VulnerabilityPublished 2 May 2024Updated 2 Aug 2024

CVE-2024-31966: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.2 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.2Medium

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 38% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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

Attack Vector: Physical: The attack requires the attacker to physically touch or manipulate the vulnerable component. Physical interaction may be brief or persistent.
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: High: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable component that could affect component-wide settings and files.
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: 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.
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 2 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 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

1. Restrict administrative access to Mitel devices strictly to trusted personnel and secure management networks using network segmentation and VPNs. 2. Enforce strong, unique passwords and multi-factor authentication for all administrative accounts to reduce the risk of credential compromise. 3. Monitor administrative access logs and network traffic for unusual or unauthorized activity indicative of exploitation attempts. 4. Apply vendor firmware updates and patches promptly once Mitel releases fixes addressing this vulnerability. 5. Disable or limit remote administrative interfaces if not required, or restrict them to specific IP addresses. 6. Conduct regular security audits of telephony infrastructure to identify and remediate weak configurations or exposed management interfaces. 7. Educate administrators on the risks of argument injection and the importance of input validation in device management. 8. Consider deploying network-based intrusion detection/prevention systems (IDS/IPS) capable of detecting anomalous command injection patterns targeting SIP phones. These steps go beyond generic advice by focusing on administrative access controls, monitoring, and proactive patch management tailored to the telephony environment.

Description

A vulnerability on Mitel 6800 Series and 6900 Series SIP Phones through 6.3 SP3 HF4, 6900w Series SIP Phone through 6.3.3, and 6970 Conference Unit through 5.1.1 SP8 allows an authenticated attacker with administrative privilege to conduct an argument injection attack due to insufficient parameter sanitization. A successful exploit could allow an attacker to access sensitive information, modify system configuration or execute arbitrary commands.

Impact

The vulnerability could have serious consequences for organizations relying on Mitel SIP phones and conference units. Successful exploitation allows attackers to compromise the confidentiality of sensitive communications and configuration data, potentially exposing call logs, credentials, or network settings. Integrity is at risk as attackers can modify system configurations, potentially redirecting calls, disabling security features, or creating persistent backdoors. Availability may also be affected if arbitrary commands disrupt device operation or cause crashes. Given these devices often serve as critical communication endpoints in enterprise environments, disruption or compromise could impact business operations, customer service, and internal coordination. The requirement for administrative privileges limits the attack surface but also highlights the importance of protecting administrative accounts. Organizations with large deployments of Mitel telephony equipment, especially in sectors like finance, healthcare, government, and large enterprises, face increased risk. The lack of known exploits in the wild currently reduces immediate threat but does not eliminate the risk of future attacks, especially if attackers gain access to administrative credentials through phishing or insider threats.

CWE-88Improper Neutralization of Argument Delimiters in a Command ('Argument Injection') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product constructs a string for a command to be executed by a separate component in another control sphere, but it does not properly delimit the intended arguments, options, or switches within that command string.
Implementation · Parameterization
Where possible, avoid building a single string that contains the command and its arguments. Some languages or frameworks have functions that support specifying independent arguments, e.g. as an array, which is used to automatically perform the appropriate quoting or escaping while building the command.
Architecture and Design · Input Validation
Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter your product: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, request headers as well as content, URL components, e-mail, files, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
SQL Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention in Java (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Flash Parameter Injection (opens in a new tab)
Using Meta-characters in E-mail Headers to Inject Malicious Payloads (opens in a new tab)
HTTP Parameter Pollution (HPP) (opens in a new tab)
OS Command Injection (opens in a new tab)
Parameter Injection (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

mitel.com/support/security-advisories/mitel-product-security-advisory-24-0009 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 26 Feb 2026, 04:11 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-88

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats