CVE-2024-36059VulnerabilityPublished 27 Jun 2024Updated 2 Aug 2024

CVE-2024-36059: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.4 Critical.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

9.4Critical

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

EPSS: 0.7% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 54% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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: 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: 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: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 27 Jun 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 2026-10-25.

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

To mitigate CVE-2024-36059, organizations should implement a multi-layered approach: 1) Immediately isolate affected ASE61850 IEDSmart devices from untrusted networks by enforcing strict network segmentation and firewall rules limiting IEC61850 protocol traffic to trusted management stations only. 2) Employ deep packet inspection and anomaly detection systems to monitor IEC61850 File Transfer protocol communications for suspicious file path patterns indicative of directory traversal attempts. 3) Restrict access to device management interfaces using strong authentication mechanisms and VPNs, even if the vulnerability itself does not require authentication, to reduce exposure. 4) Regularly audit device configurations and file system integrity to detect unauthorized changes. 5) Engage with Kalkitech for updates or patches and apply them promptly once available. 6) Develop and test incident response plans specific to industrial control system compromises. 7) Consider deploying compensating controls such as application-layer proxies or protocol-aware gateways that validate and sanitize file transfer requests. These steps go beyond generic advice by focusing on protocol-specific monitoring and network architecture hardening tailored to IEC61850 environments.

Description

Directory Traversal vulnerability in Kalkitech ASE ASE61850 IEDSmart upto and including version 2.3.5 allows attackers to read/write arbitrary files via the IEC61850 File Transfer protocol.

Impact

The impact of CVE-2024-36059 is substantial for organizations operating critical infrastructure, especially electric utilities and industrial control systems that rely on Kalkitech ASE ASE61850 IEDSmart devices. Successful exploitation can lead to unauthorized disclosure of sensitive configuration files or operational data, potentially exposing network architecture, credentials, or control logic. Writing arbitrary files could enable attackers to disrupt device functionality, cause denial of service, or implant malicious code to facilitate further compromise or persistent access. This could result in operational outages, safety hazards, and significant financial and reputational damage. Given the IEC61850 protocol's role in power grid automation, exploitation could affect grid stability and reliability. The lack of authentication and user interaction requirements lowers the barrier for attackers, increasing the risk of widespread exploitation if the vulnerability is weaponized. Organizations worldwide with deployments of these devices face risks of espionage, sabotage, and operational disruption.

CWE-22Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #6OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but the product does not properly neutralize special elements within the pathname that can cause the pathname to resolve to a location that is outside of the restricted directory.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
Architecture and Design
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks…
Implementation · Input Validation
Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Path Traversal (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes and URL Encoding Combined to Bypass Validation Logic (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls (opens in a new tab)
Using Escaped Slashes in Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes in Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

kalkitech.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/CYB_60704_Advisory_v1.0.pdf (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 26 Feb 2026, 04:57 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-22

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats