CVE-2024-33903VulnerabilityPublished 29 Apr 2024Updated 6 Sep 2024

CVE-2024-33903: carla · n/a

Affects carlaSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.9 Medium : upgrade to 0.9.15.3 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.9Medium

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

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 45% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 0.9.15.3

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
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: 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).
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: 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 29 Apr 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 2026-10-26.

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

Upgrade carla-simulator/carla to 0.9.15.3.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubcarla-simulator/carla`pkg:github/carla-simulator/carla`Other threats	Affected <0.9.15.3	Fixed in 0.9.15.3

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

Currently, no official patches are available for this vulnerability. Organizations should monitor CARLA project updates closely and apply patches promptly once released. In the interim, developers can implement custom collision detection logic or extend the Blueprint library to expose and properly handle collision sensor functions for pedestrians and bicycles. Conducting additional validation and cross-checking simulation results with alternative tools or real-world data can help identify discrepancies caused by this vulnerability. Restricting network access to CARLA simulation environments and limiting exposure to untrusted inputs can reduce attack surface. Additionally, organizations should incorporate this vulnerability into their risk assessments and testing protocols to ensure simulation integrity is maintained until a fix is available.

Description

In CARLA through 0.9.15.2, the collision sensor mishandles some situations involving pedestrians or bicycles, in part because the collision sensor function is not exposed to the Blueprint library.

Impact

The primary impact of this vulnerability is on the integrity of simulation data generated by CARLA. Inaccurate collision detection involving pedestrians or bicycles can lead to flawed simulation outcomes, which may cause developers to draw incorrect conclusions about autonomous vehicle behavior and safety. This can delay development cycles, increase testing costs, and potentially result in unsafe autonomous driving systems if undetected errors propagate into real-world deployments. Since CARLA is widely used in academic research, industry R&D, and autonomous vehicle testing, the scope of affected systems includes any organization or entity using vulnerable versions of CARLA for simulation. There is no direct impact on confidentiality or availability, and no known active exploitation reduces immediate risk. However, the reliance on simulation accuracy in safety-critical autonomous vehicle development makes this vulnerability significant for organizations in this sector.

CWE-693Protection Mechanism Failure (opens in a new tab)
Pillar weaknessOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Tracing (opens in a new tab)
Directory Indexing (opens in a new tab)
Using Malicious Files (opens in a new tab)
Encryption Brute Forcing (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

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 28 Feb 2026, 03:06 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-693

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats