VulnerabilityPublished 2 Aug 2024Updated 4 Nov 2025

CVE-2024-33892: Cosy+ devices running a firmware · Insecure Permissions

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium · fixed in 21.2 : update affected systems when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

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.
Patch: Available – fixed in 21.2

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: Low
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: 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: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 2 Aug 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

European organizations should immediately verify the firmware versions of all deployed Cosy+ devices and upgrade to at least version 21.2s10 or 22.1s3 as provided by the vendor. In addition to patching, administrators should audit cookie permissions and access controls on these devices to ensure that sensitive information is not exposed to unauthorized users. Network segmentation should be employed to isolate Cosy+ devices from untrusted networks, limiting exposure. Implement strict monitoring and logging of device access and cookie usage to detect anomalous behavior indicative of exploitation attempts. Where possible, disable unnecessary services or interfaces on Cosy+ devices to reduce attack vectors. Organizations should also review and enforce strong authentication and authorization policies around remote access infrastructure to mitigate risks stemming from this vulnerability. Finally, maintain an up-to-date inventory of affected devices and apply vendor security advisories promptly.

Description

Insecure Permissions vulnerability in Cosy+ devices running a firmware 21.x below 21.2s10 or a firmware 22.x below 22.1s3 are susceptible to leaking information through cookies. This is fixed in version 21.2s10 and 22.1s3

Impact

For European organizations, the vulnerability could lead to unauthorized access to sensitive session or configuration data stored in cookies on Cosy+ devices. This may enable attackers to manipulate device behavior or escalate privileges indirectly, potentially disrupting industrial processes or remote access systems. While the confidentiality impact is limited, integrity concerns could affect operational reliability and trustworthiness of device communications. Organizations in sectors such as manufacturing, energy, or critical infrastructure that rely on Cosy+ devices for secure remote connectivity are at higher risk. Exploitation could facilitate lateral movement or reconnaissance within networks, increasing the attack surface. The absence of known exploits reduces immediate risk, but the ease of exploitation without authentication means that unpatched devices remain vulnerable to opportunistic attackers. The impact on availability is minimal, but the integrity compromise could have cascading effects on dependent systems and processes.

CWE-281Improper Preservation of Permissions (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product does not preserve permissions or incorrectly preserves permissions when copying, restoring, or sharing objects, which can cause them to have less restrictive permissions than intended.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
V13.4.2 (opens in a new tab)
V7.2.2 (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 4 Nov 2025, 17:10 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-281

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats