VulnerabilityPublished 29 Nov 2024Updated 3 Nov 2025

CVE-2024-48651: proftpd · Incorrect Authorization

Affects proftpdSource CVE Database V5

Exposed hosts seen by OffSeq Mirage · public detection template (Nuclei) · CVSS 7.5 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

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

EPSS: 2.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 82% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
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: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
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: 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 29 Nov 2024
Detectable: evidence found.
nuclei template: ProFTPD ≤ 1.3.8b - Privilege Escalation via mod_sql
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: evidence found.
6 exposed hosts found; no attack traffic recorded

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), OffSeq Mirage (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
GitHubproftpd/proftpd`pkg:github/proftpd/proftpd`Other threats	Affected =1.3.8	Fixed in–

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

European organizations should immediately verify if their ProFTPD installations are running versions up to 1.3.8b prior to commit cec01cc and using mod_sql. The primary mitigation is to upgrade ProFTPD to the fixed version that addresses this supplemental group inheritance flaw. If an immediate upgrade is not feasible, administrators should review and restrict FTP server configurations to limit access to sensitive directories, especially those owned by the root group. Disabling mod_sql or replacing it with alternative authentication methods that correctly handle supplemental groups can reduce risk. Network-level controls such as firewall rules to restrict FTP access to trusted IP ranges and monitoring FTP server logs for unusual access patterns are recommended. Additionally, organizations should implement file integrity monitoring on critical directories to detect unauthorized access attempts. Regular vulnerability scanning and penetration testing focused on FTP services will help identify exposure. Finally, ensure that incident response plans include procedures for handling potential data disclosure incidents stemming from this vulnerability.

Description

In ProFTPD through 1.3.8b before cec01cc, supplemental group inheritance grants unintended access to GID 0 because of the lack of supplemental groups from mod_sql.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a serious risk to the confidentiality of sensitive data stored on FTP servers running vulnerable ProFTPD versions. Unauthorized access to files restricted to the root group could lead to exposure of critical system files, configuration data, or sensitive business information. Sectors such as finance, healthcare, government, and critical infrastructure that rely on FTP for file transfers are particularly vulnerable. The vulnerability does not affect data integrity or availability, but the confidentiality breach alone can result in regulatory non-compliance, reputational damage, and potential data leaks. Since exploitation requires no authentication and no user interaction, attackers can remotely scan and exploit exposed FTP servers, increasing the attack surface. The absence of known exploits in the wild currently provides a window for proactive mitigation, but the high severity score indicates urgent attention is necessary to prevent future 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

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 3 Nov 2025, 23:36 UTC

Public exploits and detectiona Nuclei detection template

WeaknessesCWE-863

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats