CVE-2024-41992VulnerabilityPublished 11 Nov 2024Updated 12 Nov 2024

CVE-2024-41992: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.8 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 08:30 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.8High

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

EPSS: 2.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 84% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Adjacent
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
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: 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: 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: 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 11 Nov 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 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-2024-41992, organizations should immediately restrict network access to the affected TCP ports (8000 and 8080) on LAN and WAN interfaces to trusted personnel and systems only. Network segmentation should isolate vulnerable devices from critical infrastructure and limit exposure to untrusted networks. Employ strict firewall rules and access control lists to block unauthorized traffic targeting the wfa_dut service. Monitor network traffic for unusual activity on the specified ports and implement intrusion detection/prevention systems with signatures tuned for command injection attempts. Where possible, disable or remove the Wi-Fi Test Suite or wfa_dut component from production environments if not actively used. Coordinate with device vendors and the Wi-Fi Alliance for patches or updates addressing this vulnerability and apply them promptly once available. Conduct thorough security assessments of devices incorporating this component to identify and remediate any signs of compromise. Additionally, implement robust logging and alerting to detect exploitation attempts early. For organizations operating Wi-Fi certification labs, enforce strict physical and network security controls to prevent unauthorized access.

Description

Wi-Fi Alliance wfa_dut (in Wi-Fi Test Suite) through 9.0.0 allows OS command injection via 802.11x frames because the system() library function is used. For example, on Arcadyan FMIMG51AX000J devices, this leads to wfaTGSendPing remote code execution as root via traffic to TCP port 8000 or 8080 on a LAN interface. On other devices, this may be exploitable over a WAN interface.

Impact

The impact of CVE-2024-41992 is severe for organizations relying on affected Wi-Fi testing tools and devices. Successful exploitation grants attackers root-level remote code execution, compromising confidentiality by allowing data theft or interception, integrity by enabling manipulation of device configurations or network traffic, and availability by potentially causing device crashes or denial of service. In environments where these devices are connected to critical infrastructure or internal networks, attackers could use compromised devices as footholds to escalate attacks or move laterally. The vulnerability's presence on LAN and potentially WAN interfaces broadens the attack vector, increasing risk from both internal and external threat actors. Enterprises using Arcadyan FMIMG51AX000J or similar devices may face operational disruptions, data breaches, and regulatory compliance issues. The lack of authentication and user interaction requirements further heightens the threat, enabling automated exploitation. The vulnerability also poses risks to Wi-Fi certification labs and manufacturers, potentially undermining trust in Wi-Fi testing processes.

CWE-78Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #9OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product constructs all or part of an OS command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended OS command when it is sent to a downstream component.
Architecture and Design
If at all possible, use library calls rather than external processes to recreate the desired functionality.
Architecture and Design · Operation · Sandbox or Jail
Run the code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software.
Architecture and Design · Attack Surface Reduction
For any data that will be used to generate a command to be executed, keep as much of that data out of external control as possible. For example, in web applications, this may require storing the data locally in the session's state instead of sending it out to the client in a hidden form field.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention in Java (opens in a new tab)
OS Command Injection Defense (opens in a new tab)
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.3.5 (opens in a new tab)
V5.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Command Line Execution through SQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
Command Delimiters (opens in a new tab)
Exploiting Multiple Input Interpretation Layers (opens in a new tab)
Argument Injection (opens in a new tab)
OS Command Injection (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 28 Feb 2026, 05:53 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-78

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats