VulnerabilityPublished 24 Oct 2024Updated 28 Oct 2024

CVE-2024-45259: Inadequate Encryption Strength

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 13:47 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 13% 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:N/I:H/A:N

Attack Vector: Adjacent
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: High
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: 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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
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 24 Oct 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

Immediately restrict network access to the HTTP management interface of affected GL-iNet devices by implementing firewall rules or network segmentation to allow only trusted administrators to connect.
Disable remote management over HTTP or restrict it to secure channels such as VPN or SSH tunnels to prevent interception and manipulation of requests.
Monitor network traffic for unusual HTTP requests targeting the download interface, especially those attempting to modify filename parameters.
Regularly back up device configurations and critical files to enable rapid recovery if file deletion occurs.
Stay informed about firmware updates from GL-iNet and apply patches promptly once available to address this vulnerability.
Consider replacing affected devices with models that have a stronger security posture if timely patching is not feasible.
Employ intrusion detection systems capable of detecting anomalous HTTP requests indicative of exploitation attempts.
Educate network administrators about the risks of exposing device management interfaces to untrusted networks and enforce strict access controls.

Description

An issue was discovered on certain GL-iNet devices, including MT6000, MT3000, MT2500, AXT1800, and AX1800 4.6.2. By intercepting an HTTP request and changing the filename property in the download interface, any file on the device can be deleted.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2024-45259 is on the integrity of affected GL-iNet devices. An attacker can delete arbitrary files, potentially removing critical system or configuration files, which may lead to device instability, loss of configuration, or denial of service. This could disrupt network connectivity for users relying on these devices, impacting business operations or home network security. Since the vulnerability does not affect confidentiality or availability directly, the risk is focused on device reliability and trustworthiness. Organizations using these devices in sensitive environments or as part of critical infrastructure could face operational disruptions. The ease of exploitation without authentication and user interaction increases the threat level, especially in environments where these devices are accessible from untrusted networks. The lack of known exploits in the wild suggests limited current exploitation but also indicates the need for proactive mitigation. The vulnerability could be leveraged as a stepping stone for further attacks if combined with other vulnerabilities or misconfigurations.

CWE-326Inadequate Encryption Strength (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessOWASP Top 10 A04:2025: Cryptographic Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product stores or transmits sensitive data using an encryption scheme that is theoretically sound, but is not strong enough for the level of protection required.
Architecture and Design
Use an encryption scheme that is currently considered to be strong by experts in the field.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Cryptographic Storage (opens in a new tab)
Key Management (opens in a new tab)
Transport Layer Protection (opens in a new tab)
User Privacy Protection (opens in a new tab)
Password Storage (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V2.8.3 (opens in a new tab)
V6.2.7 (opens in a new tab)
V6.2.4 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Encryption Brute Forcing (opens in a new tab)
Brute Force (opens in a new tab)
Protocol Analysis (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/Delete%20Any%20File%20via%20Download%20Interface.md (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 28 Feb 2026, 06:56 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-326

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats