VulnerabilityPublished 22 Aug 2024Updated 31 Oct 2024

CVE-2024-45165: UCI IDOL · Use of Hard-coded Credentials

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 6% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Adjacent
Attack Complexity: High
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: 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: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
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 22 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

Given the lack of available patches for CVE-2024-45165, organizations should implement several specific mitigations: 1) Restrict network access to UCI IDOL 2 communication channels by using network segmentation, firewalls, and VPNs to limit exposure to trusted hosts only. 2) Employ network-level encryption or tunneling (e.g., TLS, IPsec) external to the application to protect data in transit independently of the vulnerable encryption. 3) Monitor network traffic for unusual patterns or signs of MITM attacks, including unexpected message modifications or repeated retransmissions. 4) Conduct regular security audits and penetration tests focusing on the UCI IDOL 2 environment to detect potential exploitation attempts. 5) Engage with the vendor or software maintainers to obtain updates or patches addressing the hardcoded key issue. 6) Where feasible, replace or upgrade UCI IDOL 2 deployments with alternative solutions that follow secure cryptographic practices. 7) Educate network administrators and security teams about this vulnerability to ensure rapid detection and response. These targeted actions go beyond generic advice by focusing on network controls and compensating encryption layers to mitigate the specific risk posed by the static key.

Description

An issue was discovered in UCI IDOL 2 (aka uciIDOL or IDOL2) through 2.12. Data is sent between client and server with encryption. However, the key is derived from the string "(c)2007 UCI Software GmbH B.Boll" (without quotes). The key is both static and hardcoded. With access to messages, this results in message decryption and encryption by an attacker. Thus, it enables passive and active man-in-the-middle attacks.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2024-45165 is the compromise of confidentiality for data transmitted between clients and servers using UCI IDOL 2. Attackers capable of intercepting network traffic can decrypt sensitive information, potentially exposing intellectual property, personal data, or other confidential communications. Additionally, the ability to encrypt messages allows an attacker to perform active MITM attacks, injecting or modifying data in transit without detection. This undermines trust in the communication channel and can lead to further exploitation or data manipulation downstream. While integrity and availability are not directly impacted, the breach of confidentiality alone can have severe consequences for organizations, including regulatory non-compliance, reputational damage, and operational risks. The attack complexity is high, requiring network access to the communication channel, which may limit exposure to local or adjacent network attackers rather than remote internet-based adversaries. However, in environments where UCI IDOL 2 is used internally or across trusted networks, the risk remains significant. The absence of patches means organizations must rely on compensating controls until a fix is available.

CWE-798Use of Hard-coded Credentials (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product contains hard-coded credentials, such as a password or cryptographic key.
Architecture and Design
For outbound authentication: store passwords, keys, and other credentials outside of the code in a strongly-protected, encrypted configuration file or database that is protected from access by all outsiders, including other local users on the same system. Properly protect the key (CWE-320).
Architecture and Design
For inbound authentication: Rather than hard-code a default username and password, key, or other authentication credentials for first time logins, utilize a "first login" mode that requires the user to enter a unique strong password or key.
Architecture and Design
If the product must contain hard-coded credentials or they cannot be removed, perform access control checks and limit which entities can access the feature that requires the hard-coded credentials. For example, a feature might only be enabled through the system console instead of through a network connection.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Key Management (opens in a new tab)
REST Security (opens in a new tab)
JSON Web Token for Java (opens in a new tab)
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V2.10.4 (opens in a new tab)
V6.4.1 (opens in a new tab)
V3.5.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Read Sensitive Constants Within an Executable (opens in a new tab)
Try Common or Default Usernames and Passwords (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, 06:52 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-798

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats