CVE-2024-45260VulnerabilityPublished 24 Oct 2024Updated 28 Oct 2024

CVE-2024-45260: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.0 High.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.0High

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

EPSS: 4.0% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 90% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Adjacent
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
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: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
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 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 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

1. Immediately restrict access to the management interfaces of affected GL-iNet devices to trusted administrators only, preferably via secure management VLANs or VPNs. 2. Disable remote management features if not strictly necessary to reduce the attack surface. 3. Monitor network traffic and device logs for unusual access patterns or unauthorized interface invocations. 4. Implement network segmentation to isolate vulnerable devices from critical infrastructure and sensitive data. 5. Enforce strong authentication and authorization policies for device access, including multi-factor authentication where supported. 6. Regularly audit user group memberships on the devices to ensure no unauthorized users have elevated privileges. 7. Stay alert for official firmware updates or patches from GL-iNet and apply them promptly once available. 8. Consider deploying network intrusion detection systems (NIDS) to detect anomalous activities targeting these devices. 9. If possible, replace affected devices with models not impacted by this vulnerability or from vendors with more timely security support.

Description

An issue was discovered on certain GL-iNet devices, including MT6000, MT3000, MT2500, AXT1800, and AX1800 4.6.2. Users who belong to unauthorized groups can invoke any interface of the device, thereby gaining complete control over it.

Impact

The impact of CVE-2024-45260 is substantial for organizations using affected GL-iNet devices. Successful exploitation grants attackers full administrative control over the router, enabling them to alter configurations, intercept or redirect network traffic, deploy malware, or create persistent backdoors. This compromises the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of network communications passing through the device. For enterprises, this could lead to data breaches, disruption of business operations, and lateral movement within internal networks. Small and medium businesses relying on these routers for secure connectivity are particularly vulnerable due to limited security monitoring. The vulnerability also poses risks to home users who may have sensitive personal data or IoT devices connected. Since the attack requires only low privileges and no user interaction, it can be executed stealthily by insiders or attackers who have gained limited network access. The absence of patches increases the window of exposure, making timely mitigation critical to prevent exploitation.

CWE-863Incorrect Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #17OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.
Architecture and Design
Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
V13.4.2 (opens in a new tab)
V7.2.2 (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/Unauthorized%20Access%20to%20File%20Download%20and%20Upload%20Interfaces.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-863

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats