VulnerabilityPublished 7 May 2024Updated 2 Aug 2024

CVE-2024-33857: Logpoint · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.6 Critical · fixed in 7.4.0 : patch Logpoint as a priority.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 12:54 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

9.6Critical

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 33% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Affects: Logpoint before 7.4.0
Patch: Available – fixed in 7.4.0

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
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: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
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: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 7 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

To mitigate CVE-2024-33857, organizations should immediately upgrade Logpoint to version 7.4.0 or later, where the vulnerability has been addressed. Until patching is complete, implement strict network segmentation and firewall rules to limit the Logpoint server's ability to initiate outbound requests to internal resources. Employ application-layer filtering to validate and sanitize URLs used within threat intelligence feeds. Monitor logs and network traffic for unusual or unexpected outbound connections originating from the Logpoint server. Restrict low-level user access to the Logpoint system to trusted personnel only, minimizing the risk of exploitation by unauthorized users. Conduct regular security assessments and penetration testing focused on SSRF vectors within security infrastructure components. Additionally, consider deploying Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) with SSRF detection capabilities to provide an additional layer of defense. Maintain up-to-date threat intelligence and vulnerability management processes to quickly identify and respond to emerging threats.

Description

An issue was discovered in Logpoint before 7.4.0. Due to a lack of input validation on URLs in threat intelligence, an attacker with low-level access to the system can trigger Server Side Request Forgery.

Impact

The impact of CVE-2024-33857 is significant for organizations using vulnerable versions of Logpoint. Successful exploitation allows attackers with low-level access to perform SSRF attacks, potentially accessing internal services that are not exposed externally, such as internal APIs, metadata services, or administrative interfaces. This can lead to unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information, including credentials, configuration data, or internal network topology. The integrity of threat intelligence data and other system components can be compromised, enabling attackers to manipulate security monitoring or evade detection. Although availability is not directly impacted, the breach of confidentiality and integrity can facilitate further attacks, including lateral movement and privilege escalation within the network. Organizations in regulated industries or those protecting critical infrastructure face heightened risks due to potential data breaches and compliance violations. The vulnerability's ease of exploitation and high severity score underscore the urgency for remediation to prevent potential compromise and data loss.

CWE-918Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessCWE Top 25 (2025): #22OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The web server receives a URL or similar request from an upstream component and retrieves the contents of this URL, but it does not sufficiently ensure that the request is being sent to the expected destination.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Server Side Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Scripting Prevention (opens in a new tab)
DOM based XSS Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.6.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.2.6 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Server Side Request Forgery (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 28 Feb 2026, 03:04 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats