CVE-2024-32388VulnerabilityPublished 1 Dec 2025

CVE-2024-32388: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium · fixed in 5 : update affected systems when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 1.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 68% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 5

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

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

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

Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
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: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.

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 devices to KerOS version 5.12 or later, where the firewall misconfiguration is corrected. 2. In the absence of immediate patching, implement strict firewall rules at the network perimeter to explicitly block unauthorized UDP traffic destined for Kerlink devices. 3. Conduct a thorough audit of firewall configurations on affected devices to ensure that UDP packet filtering is correctly enforced. 4. Employ network segmentation to isolate Kerlink devices and limit exposure of UDP services to only trusted network segments. 5. Deploy network intrusion detection or prevention systems (IDS/IPS) with signatures or anomaly detection capabilities to monitor for unusual UDP traffic patterns indicative of exploitation attempts. 6. Maintain up-to-date asset inventories to quickly identify and remediate vulnerable devices. 7. Engage with Kerlink support or vendor channels to obtain official patches or guidance as they become available.

Description

CVE-2024-32388 is a medium-severity vulnerability affecting Kerlink devices running KerOS versions prior to 5.12. Due to a firewall misconfiguration, these devices incorrectly accept specially crafted UDP packets, allowing attackers to bypass firewall protections and access UDP-based services that should be restricted. The vulnerability does not require authentication or user interaction and can be exploited remotely over the network. While no known exploits are currently reported in the wild, the flaw exposes sensitive UDP services to unauthorized access, potentially leading to information disclosure. The CVSS score is 5.3, reflecting limited confidentiality impact and no integrity or availability compromise. European organizations using Kerlink devices, especially in IoT or telecom sectors, should prioritize patching or mitigating this issue. Countries with significant deployments of Kerlink infrastructure, such as France and Germany, are more likely to be affected. Mitigation involves updating to KerOS 5.

Impact

For European organizations, particularly those in telecommunications, IoT deployments, and critical infrastructure sectors using Kerlink devices, this vulnerability could lead to unauthorized access to UDP services that are assumed to be protected by firewall rules. This exposure could result in information disclosure or reconnaissance opportunities for attackers, potentially facilitating further attacks. Although the vulnerability does not directly compromise integrity or availability, the unauthorized access to UDP services could allow attackers to gather sensitive network information or exploit other vulnerabilities in exposed services. The impact is more pronounced in environments where UDP services handle sensitive data or control communications. Given the medium severity and lack of authentication requirements, attackers can exploit this vulnerability remotely without user interaction, increasing the risk profile. European organizations relying on Kerlink devices should consider this a significant risk, especially if these devices are deployed in perimeter or critical network segments.

CWE-402Transmission of Private Resources into a New Sphere ('Resource Leak') (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessOWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product makes resources available to untrusted parties when those resources are only intended to be accessed by the product.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-940Improper Verification of Source of a Communication Channel (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product establishes a communication channel to handle an incoming request that has been initiated by an actor, but it does not properly verify that the request is coming from the expected origin.
Architecture and Design
Use a mechanism that can validate the identity of the source, such as a certificate, and validate the integrity of data to ensure that it cannot be modified in transit using an Adversary-in-the-Middle (AITM) attack.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.14.1 (opens in a new tab)
V14.5.2 (opens in a new tab)
V14.5.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
WebView Injection (opens in a new tab)
Connection Reset (opens in a new tab)
TCP RST Injection (opens in a new tab)
Traffic Injection (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 8 Dec 2025, 17:13 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-402, CWE-940

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats