VulnerabilityPublished 30 Sep 2024Updated 14 Nov 2024

CVE-2024-46635: Insecure Storage of Sensitive Information

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.9 Medium · fixed in 202402060 : update affected systems when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 08:30 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.9Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 17% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 202402060

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

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: Low
Availability: Low

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Local: The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Either: the attacker exploits the vulnerability by accessing the target system locally (e.g., keyboard, console), or remotely (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., tricking a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
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: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
Integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component.
Availability: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 30 Sep 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

Organizations should immediately review access controls and network segmentation to limit local access to the vulnerable API endpoint. Monitoring and logging API requests to detect anomalous payloads targeting UserNameOrPhoneNumber parameters can help identify exploitation attempts. If you cannot patch yet, consider implementing Web Application Firewall (WAF) rules to block suspicious payloads or restrict access to the /AccountMaster/GetCurrentUserInfo endpoint to trusted IP ranges. Conduct thorough audits of user data exposure and enforce the principle of least privilege for internal network users. Once the vendor releases a patch, prioritize its deployment in all affected environments. Additionally, educate internal teams about the risks of local network threats and enforce strong internal security policies to reduce the likelihood of exploitation.

Description

An issue in the API endpoint /AccountMaster/GetCurrentUserInfo of INROAD before v202402060 allows attackers to access sensitive information via a crafted payload to the UserNameOrPhoneNumber parameter.

Impact

The vulnerability allows unauthorized access to sensitive user information, which can compromise confidentiality by exposing personal or organizational data. Integrity and availability impacts are rated low to medium but still present, as attackers might manipulate or disrupt API responses. For organizations, this could lead to data breaches, loss of customer trust, regulatory penalties, and potential lateral movement within networks if attackers leverage the information for further exploitation. The requirement for local access limits the attack scope but does not eliminate risk, especially in environments with weak internal network segmentation or insider threats. Industries relying heavily on INROAD for user management or authentication services, such as finance, healthcare, and government, could face significant operational and reputational damage if exploited.

CWE-922Insecure Storage of Sensitive Information (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessOWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product stores sensitive information without properly limiting read or write access by unauthorized actors.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.1.6 (opens in a new tab)
V8.2.3 (opens in a new tab)
V8.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

hithub.notion.site/Sensitive-Information-Disclosure-in-GongZhiDao-System-aaad25d2430f4a638d462194cfa87c8b (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 26 Feb 2026, 08:44 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-922

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats