VulnerabilityPublished 6 Aug 2024Updated 21 Nov 2024

CVE-2024-39229: a Communication Channel · Improper Enforcement of Message Integrity During Transmission

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 7% 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:L/I:L/A:N

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

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 6 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

Until official patches are released by GL-iNet, organizations should implement network-level mitigations to reduce exposure. These include enforcing encrypted tunnels (e.g., VPNs) for remote access to devices, restricting DDNS traffic to trusted networks, and monitoring network traffic for unusual patterns indicative of MitM attempts. Disabling DDNS services on affected devices where feasible can eliminate the attack vector. Network segmentation and strict firewall rules should be applied to isolate vulnerable devices from untrusted networks. Additionally, organizations should subscribe to GL-iNet security advisories and promptly apply firmware updates once available. Employing DNS security extensions (DNSSEC) and validating DNS responses can help mitigate downstream DNS manipulation risks. Regular security audits and penetration testing focusing on network device communications are recommended to detect exploitation attempts.

Description

An issue in GL-iNet products AR750/AR750S/AR300M/AR300M16/MT300N-V2/B1300/MT1300/SFT1200/X750 v4.3.11, MT3000/MT2500/AXT1800/AX1800/A1300/X300B v4.5.16, XE300 v4.3.16, E750 v4.3.12, AP1300/S1300 v4.3.13, XE3000/X3000 v4, and B2200/MV1000/MV1000W/USB150/N300/SF1200 v3.216 allows attackers to intercept communications via a man-in-the-middle attack when DDNS clients are reporting data to the server.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2024-39229 is the compromise of confidentiality and integrity of communications between affected GL-iNet devices and DDNS servers. Attackers exploiting this vulnerability could intercept sensitive information, including device status and network configuration data. This could facilitate further attacks such as DNS spoofing, traffic interception, or redirection, undermining network security and user privacy. Organizations relying on these devices for remote access or dynamic DNS services may experience degraded trust in their network infrastructure. Although availability is not directly affected, the indirect consequences of MitM attacks could disrupt network operations or enable unauthorized access. The vulnerability affects a broad range of GL-iNet products, which are popular in various regions for their cost-effective networking solutions, thus potentially impacting numerous small businesses, remote workers, and IoT deployments globally.

Summary

CVE-2024-39229 is a vulnerability identified in multiple GL-iNet router models, including AR750, AR750S, AR300M series, MT300N-V2, B1300, MT1300, SFT1200, and others, across various firmware versions (notably v3.x and v4.x). The flaw allows an unauthenticated remote attacker to intercept communications between the Dynamic DNS (DDNS) clients on these devices and their corresponding DDNS servers. This interception is possible due to improper security controls in the DDNS client reporting mechanism, which does not adequately protect the data in transit, enabling man-in-the-middle (MitM) attacks. The vulnerability is classified under CWE-924, which relates to improper protection of data in transit. The CVSS 3.1 base score of 6.5 indicates a medium severity, with attack vector being network-based, no privileges or user interaction required, and impacts on confidentiality and integrity but not availability. No patches or exploits are currently known, but the exposure is significant given the widespread use of these routers in consumer and small business environments. The vulnerability could allow attackers to eavesdrop on or manipulate DDNS update data, potentially leading to further attacks such as DNS hijacking or traffic redirection.

CWE-924Improper Enforcement of Message Integrity During Transmission in a Communication Channel (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product establishes a communication channel with an endpoint and receives a message from that endpoint, but it does not sufficiently ensure that the message was not modified during transmission.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
REST Security (opens in a new tab)
JSON Web Token for Java (opens in a new tab)
REST Assessment (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Site Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.2 (opens in a new tab)
V3.5.3 (opens in a new tab)
V13.2.6 (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

github.com/gl-inet/CVE-issues/blob/main/4.0.0/DDNS%20data%20is%20not%20encrypted.md (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 28 Feb 2026, 04:20 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-924

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats