VulnerabilityPublished 3 Jul 2024Updated 2 Aug 2024

CVE-2024-39220: Plaintext Storage of a Password

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium · fixed in 3.9.2 : update affected systems when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 37% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 3.9.2

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: High
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
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: High: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable component that could affect component-wide settings and files.
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: 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 3 Jul 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-2024-39220, organizations should immediately upgrade all affected BAS-IP devices to firmware version 3.9.2 or later, where the vulnerability is patched. In addition, restrict access to device management interfaces to trusted networks and users only, employing network segmentation and firewall rules to limit exposure. Enforce strong authentication mechanisms and regularly rotate administrative credentials to reduce the risk of unauthorized access. Monitor device logs for unusual GET requests or access patterns indicative of exploitation attempts. Disable or restrict SIP account management features if not required, and consider implementing additional encryption or VPN tunnels for management traffic. Regularly audit and inventory BAS-IP devices to ensure all are updated and compliant with security policies. Finally, educate administrators on the risks of credential exposure and the importance of applying vendor patches promptly.

Description

BAS-IP AV-01D, AV-01MD, AV-01MFD, AV-01ED, AV-01KD, AV-01BD, AV-01KBD, AV-02D, AV-02IDE, AV-02IDR, AV-02IPD, AV-02FDE, AV-02FDR, AV-03D, AV-03BD, AV-04AFD, AV-04ASD, AV-04FD, AV-04SD, AV-05FD, AV-05SD, AA-07BD, AA-07BDI, BA-04BD, BA-04MD, BA-08BD, BA-08MD, BA-12BD, BA-12MD, CR-02BD before firmware v3.9.2 allows authenticated attackers to read SIP account passwords via a crafted GET request.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2024-39220 is the compromise of SIP account credentials, which can lead to unauthorized access to VoIP communication channels. Attackers with these credentials could intercept calls, eavesdrop on sensitive conversations, or impersonate legitimate users to conduct fraudulent communications. This undermines both confidentiality and integrity of communications within organizations. While the vulnerability does not affect device availability, the exposure of SIP credentials can have cascading effects on operational security, especially in environments where BAS-IP devices are integrated into critical access control and communication infrastructure. Organizations in sectors such as corporate offices, residential complexes, healthcare, and government facilities that use these devices could face increased risks of espionage, fraud, or disruption of secure communications. The requirement for authenticated access limits the attack surface but does not eliminate risk, especially if credential management or network segmentation is weak.

Summary

CVE-2024-39220 is a vulnerability identified in a wide range of BAS-IP intercom and access control devices, including models AV-01D through BA-12MD and CR-02BD, among others, all before firmware version 3.9.2. The flaw allows an authenticated attacker to extract SIP account passwords by issuing a specially crafted HTTP GET request to the device. SIP (Session Initiation Protocol) credentials are critical for managing VoIP communications, and their compromise can lead to unauthorized call interception, call manipulation, or impersonation. The vulnerability stems from improper protection of sensitive credential data within the device’s web interface or API, classified under CWE-256 (Plaintext Storage of a Password). The CVSS v3.1 base score is 6.5, reflecting a medium severity with network attack vector, low attack complexity, and requiring high privileges (authenticated user). The vulnerability does not require user interaction and does not impact device availability but compromises confidentiality and integrity of SIP credentials. No public exploits have been reported yet, but the broad range of affected devices and the critical nature of SIP credentials make this a significant concern for organizations relying on BAS-IP systems for secure communications.

CWE-256Plaintext Storage of a Password (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product stores a password in plaintext within resources such as memory or files.
Architecture and Design
Avoid storing passwords in easily accessible locations.
Architecture and Design
Consider storing cryptographic hashes of passwords as an alternative to storing in plaintext.
A programmer might attempt to remedy the password management problem by obscuring the password with an encoding function, such as base 64 encoding, but this effort does not adequately protect the password because the encoding can be detected and decoded easily.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Forgot Password (opens in a new tab)
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V2.7.5 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.5 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.4 (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 26 Feb 2026, 05:51 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-256

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats