VulnerabilityPublished 6 Feb 2025Updated 9 Jan 2026

CVE-2024-47256: 2N Access Commander · Use of Hard-coded Cryptographic Key

Affects 2N Access CommanderSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.0 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.0Medium

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 4% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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: High: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable component that could affect component-wide settings and files.
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: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 6 Feb 2025
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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
2N 2N Access Commander	Affected <=1.14	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Immediate upgrade to 2N Access Commander version 3.3 or later, which addresses the hardcoded key vulnerability.
Restrict administrative access to the Access Commander system strictly to trusted personnel and enforce strong authentication mechanisms such as multi-factor authentication (MFA).
Regularly audit and monitor administrative accounts and access logs for suspicious activity to detect potential insider threats or compromised credentials.
Encrypt backup files using external encryption tools or secure key management solutions rather than relying solely on the application’s internal encryption.
Implement network segmentation and access controls to limit exposure of the Access Commander system to only necessary personnel and systems.
Conduct periodic security assessments and penetration testing focused on access control systems to identify and remediate similar weaknesses.
Educate administrators on the risks of using outdated software versions and the importance of timely patching.
Maintain an incident response plan that includes procedures for handling potential data exposure from backup files.

Description

Successful exploitation of this vulnerability could allow an attacker (who needs to have Admin access privileges) to read hardcoded AES passphrase, which may be used for decryption of certain data within backup files of 2N Access Commander version 1.14 and older.2N has released an updated version 3.3 of 2N Access Commander, where this vulnerability is mitigated. It is recommended that all customers update 2N Access Commander to the latest version.

Impact

For European organizations, the exposure of hardcoded cryptographic keys in access control systems like 2N Access Commander can have significant consequences. Access Commander is used to manage physical access to facilities, and backup files may contain sensitive access credentials and configuration data. If an attacker with admin privileges extracts the AES key, they can decrypt backup files, potentially gaining insight into security policies, user access rights, and system configurations. This could facilitate further attacks, insider threats, or unauthorized physical access. Confidentiality and integrity of critical security data are compromised, which may lead to regulatory non-compliance under GDPR and other data protection laws. Although exploitation requires admin privileges, insider threats or attackers who have already compromised administrative accounts pose a risk. The vulnerability does not affect system availability directly but undermines trust in the security of access control data. Organizations in sectors like government, finance, healthcare, and critical infrastructure in Europe are particularly sensitive to such breaches.

CWE-321Use of Hard-coded Cryptographic Key (opens in a new tab)
Variant weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A04:2025: Cryptographic Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product uses a hard-coded, unchangeable cryptographic key.
Architecture and Design
Prevention schemes mirror that of hard-coded password storage.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Transport Layer Protection (opens in a new tab)
User Privacy Protection (opens in a new tab)
Password Storage (opens in a new tab)
Cryptographic Storage (opens in a new tab)
HSTS (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V2.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V2.6.2 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.5 (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

2n.com/en-GB/download/cve_2024_47256_acom_3_3_v1pdf (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 9 Jan 2026, 14:14 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-321

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats