CVE-2024-41336VulnerabilityPublished 27 Feb 2025Updated 8 Jul 2026

CVE-2024-41336: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High · fixed in 4.4.5.3 : patch affected systems soon.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:15 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 36% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 4.4.5.3, 4.4.5.1, 4.3.5.2 +6

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: None
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: 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: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 27 Feb 2025
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

If you cannot patch yet, restrict network access to device management interfaces to trusted users only and monitor for unauthorized access attempts. Avoid exposing affected devices directly to untrusted networks. Follow vendor communications for firmware updates addressing this issue.

Description

Draytek devices Vigor 165/166 prior to v4.2.6 , Vigor 2620/LTE200 prior to v3.9.8.8, Vigor 2860/2925 prior to v3.9.7, Vigor 2862/2926 prior to v3.9.9.4, Vigor 2133/2762/2832 prior to v3.9.8, Vigor 2135/2765/2766 prior to v4.4.5.1, Vigor 2865/2866/2927 prior to v4.4.5.3, Vigor 2962/3910 prior to v4.3.2.7, Vigor 3912 prior to v4.3.5.2, and Vigor 2925 up to v3.9.6 were discovered to store passwords in plaintext.

Impact

The vulnerability allows an unauthenticated attacker with network access to retrieve passwords stored in plaintext on affected Draytek devices. This compromises the confidentiality of sensitive credentials, potentially enabling unauthorized access to device management interfaces or network resources. There is no indication of impact to integrity or availability. The high CVSS score reflects the significant confidentiality impact.

Summary

CVE-2024-41336 identifies a vulnerability in multiple Draytek Vigor router models where passwords are stored in plaintext in firmware versions prior to certain fixed releases. The affected devices include various models with firmware versions below 4.2.6, 3.9.8.8, 3.9.7, 3.9.9.4, 3.9.8, 4.4.5.1, 4.4.5.3, 4.3.2.7, 4.3.5.2, and up to 3.9.6 for the Vigor 2925. This vulnerability corresponds to CWE-256 (Plaintext Storage of a Password) and has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.5, indicating high severity. The attack vector is network-based with no privileges or user interaction required, and the impact is high confidentiality loss due to exposure of passwords.

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

medium.com/faraday/advisory-multiple-vulnerabilities-affecting-draytek-routers-78a6cb8b3946 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 12 Jul 2026, 08:32 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-256

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats