CVE-2024-32384VulnerabilityPublished 1 Dec 2025

CVE-2024-32384: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.8 Medium · fixed in 5.10 : update affected systems when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.8Medium

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 7% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 5.10

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

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

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

Attack Complexity: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
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).
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.
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.
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.
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.
User Interaction: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 1 Dec 2025
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. Upgrade all Kerlink gateways to KerOS version 5.10 or later to ensure HTTPS support and encrypted management interfaces. 2. Implement strict network segmentation to isolate management interfaces from general user networks and the internet. 3. Use VPNs or secure tunnels (e.g., SSH tunnels) to access the web interface remotely, preventing exposure over untrusted networks. 4. Enforce strong authentication mechanisms and monitor access logs for unusual activity. 5. Deploy network intrusion detection systems (NIDS) to detect potential man-in-the-middle or traffic manipulation attempts. 6. Educate administrators on the risks of accessing device interfaces over unsecured networks and encourage the use of secure channels. 7. Regularly audit device configurations and firmware versions to ensure compliance with security policies. 8. If upgrading is not immediately possible, consider disabling web interface access or restricting it to trusted IP addresses only.

Description

Kerlink gateways running KerOS prior to version 5.10 expose their web interface exclusively over HTTP, without HTTPS support. This lack of transport layer security allows a man-in-the-middle attacker to intercept and modify traffic between the client and the device.

Impact

For European organizations, especially those deploying Kerlink gateways in IoT, smart city, or industrial control systems, this vulnerability poses a significant risk to the confidentiality and integrity of device management communications. An attacker exploiting this flaw could intercept administrative credentials or configuration data, potentially leading to unauthorized device control or data exfiltration. This could disrupt critical services, compromise data privacy, and facilitate further lateral movement within networks. The impact is heightened in sectors such as utilities, transportation, and manufacturing, where Kerlink gateways may be integral to operational technology (OT) environments. The lack of HTTPS also increases the risk of compliance violations under regulations like GDPR, which mandate protection of personal and sensitive data. Although availability is not directly affected, the indirect consequences of compromised device integrity could lead to operational disruptions.

CWE-319Cleartext Transmission of Sensitive Information (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A04:2025: Cryptographic Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product transmits sensitive or security-critical data in cleartext in a communication channel that can be sniffed by unauthorized actors.
Architecture and Design
Before transmitting, encrypt the data using reliable, confidentiality-protecting cryptographic protocols.
Implementation
When using web applications with SSL, use SSL for the entire session from login to logout, not just for the initial login page.
Implementation
When designing hardware platforms, ensure that approved encryption algorithms (such as those recommended by NIST) protect paths from security critical data to trusted user applications.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Transport Layer Protection (opens in a new tab)
TLS Cipher String (opens in a new tab)
User Privacy Protection (opens in a new tab)
Password Storage (opens in a new tab)
Cryptographic Storage (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V9.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
V1.9.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Session Sidejacking (opens in a new tab)
Harvesting Information via API Event Monitoring (opens in a new tab)
Signature Spoofing by Mixing Signed and Unsigned Content (opens in a new tab)
Sniff Application Code (opens in a new tab)
Interception (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 1 Dec 2025, 16:09 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-319

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats