CVE-2024-37661VulnerabilityPublished 17 Jun 2024Updated 4 Nov 2024

CVE-2024-37661: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 20% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Adjacent
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: Low
Availability: High

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

Attack Vector: Adjacent: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared physical (e.g., Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11) or logical (e.g., local IP subnet) network, or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN to an administrative network zone).
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: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
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: 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: 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 17 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 2026-10-26.

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

Since no official patches are currently available for this vulnerability, organizations should implement the following specific mitigations: 1) Segment wireless networks to isolate critical systems and reduce the attack surface; 2) Disable ICMP redirect acceptance on client devices and routers where possible to prevent processing of forged messages; 3) Employ network intrusion detection/prevention systems (IDS/IPS) to monitor and block suspicious ICMP redirect traffic; 4) Enforce strong WLAN security controls such as WPA3 and robust authentication to limit unauthorized access; 5) Regularly audit and monitor network traffic for anomalies indicative of routing manipulation; 6) Educate users about risks of connecting to untrusted WLANs and encourage use of VPNs for sensitive communications; 7) Maintain up-to-date firmware and subscribe to vendor advisories for prompt patch application once available; 8) Consider replacing affected devices with models that have hardened ICMP handling if mitigation is not feasible. These targeted actions go beyond generic advice by focusing on network protocol controls and segmentation to reduce exploitation likelihood.

Description

TP-LINK TL-7DR5130 v1.0.23 is vulnerable to forged ICMP redirect message attacks. An attacker in the same WLAN as the victim can hijack the traffic between the victim and any remote server by sending out forged ICMP redirect messages.

Impact

This vulnerability can have significant consequences for organizations relying on the affected TP-LINK router model in wireless environments. An attacker exploiting this flaw can hijack network traffic, potentially capturing sensitive data, injecting malicious content, or disrupting communications. This compromises confidentiality and integrity of data in transit and can lead to denial of service or further lateral movement within the network. The requirement for attacker proximity limits the threat to local wireless networks, but environments such as corporate WLANs, public hotspots, and shared residential networks are at risk. The disruption of availability can impact business operations, especially if critical services rely on the affected device for network connectivity. Additionally, the ability to redirect traffic can facilitate further attacks such as credential theft, malware injection, or surveillance. Organizations with high-value data or critical infrastructure connected via these routers face increased risk. The absence of known exploits reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate the potential for future attacks.

References

github.com/ouuan/router-vuln-report/blob/master/icmp-redirect/tl-7dr5130-redirect.md (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…