VulnerabilityPublished 14 Oct 2024Updated 15 Oct 2024

CVE-2024-48793

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.9 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.9Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 22% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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 14 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

Organizations should implement strict network segmentation to isolate devices running INATRONIC com.inatronic.bmw firmware from untrusted local networks and users. Access to the firmware update interface should be restricted using firewalls, VPNs, or access control lists to limit exposure to authorized personnel only. Monitoring network traffic for unusual firmware update requests or data exfiltration attempts can help detect exploitation attempts early. Since no patches are currently available, organizations should engage with the vendor to obtain updates or advisories and apply firmware updates promptly once released. Employing secure update mechanisms such as cryptographic validation of firmware and encrypted update channels can reduce risk. Additionally, conducting regular security assessments and penetration testing on embedded devices and their update processes can identify similar vulnerabilities proactively. Documenting and enforcing strict operational procedures around firmware updates, including physical security controls, will further reduce the attack surface.

Description

An issue in INATRONIC com.inatronic.bmw 2.7.1 allows a remote attacker to obtain sensitive information via the firmware update process.

Impact

The vulnerability poses a moderate risk to organizations deploying INATRONIC com.inatronic.bmw firmware, particularly in automotive or embedded device contexts. An attacker with local network access could extract sensitive information during the firmware update process, potentially exposing device internals or cryptographic material. This information disclosure could be leveraged to craft more sophisticated attacks, including firmware tampering or denial of service. While the attack requires local access and no privileges, the impact on confidentiality, integrity, and availability is non-negligible. Organizations relying on these devices may face risks to operational continuity, data privacy, and device trustworthiness. The absence of known exploits reduces immediate risk, but the vulnerability could be targeted in environments where local network access is easier to obtain, such as manufacturing plants, service centers, or poorly segmented networks. The medium severity rating suggests that while the threat is not critical, it warrants timely attention to prevent escalation or chaining with other vulnerabilities.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…