CVE-2024-50618VulnerabilityPublished 11 Feb 2026Updated 12 Feb 2026

CVE-2024-50618: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 08:30 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 20% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Affects: CIPPlanner CIPAce before 9.17

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
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: 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: 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: 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 11 Feb 2026
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

To mitigate CVE-2024-50618, organizations should: 1) Upgrade CIPPlanner CIPAce to version 9.17 or later once available, as this likely contains fixes or improved authentication mechanisms. 2) Disable internal account login where possible or restrict it to trusted administrators only. 3) Implement multi-factor authentication (MFA) for all user accounts, especially internal ones, to reduce reliance on single-factor secrets. 4) Enforce strong secret management policies, including regular rotation and complexity requirements for authentication credentials. 5) Monitor authentication logs for unusual access patterns or repeated failed attempts that could indicate credential compromise. 6) Segment CIPPlanner CIPAce systems within the network to limit exposure if compromised. 7) Conduct regular security audits and penetration testing focused on authentication controls. These steps go beyond generic advice by emphasizing configuration changes, credential hygiene, and network segmentation tailored to CIPPlanner CIPAce environments.

Description

A Use of Single-factor Authentication vulnerability in the Authentication component of CIPPlanner CIPAce before 9.17 allows attackers to bypass a protection mechanism. When the system is configured to allow login with internal accounts, an attacker can possibly obtain full authentication if the secret in a single-factor authentication scheme gets compromised.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2024-50618 is unauthorized access to CIPPlanner CIPAce systems through compromised single-factor authentication secrets. Attackers gaining full authentication can access sensitive planning and operational data, potentially leading to information disclosure. Although integrity and availability are not directly affected, unauthorized access can facilitate further malicious activities such as data exfiltration or lateral movement within an organization’s network. Organizations relying on CIPPlanner CIPAce for critical infrastructure or industrial planning may face operational risks if attackers exploit this vulnerability. The medium severity score reflects moderate risk, but the impact could escalate if combined with other vulnerabilities or poor internal security controls. Since no known exploits are currently in the wild, the threat is more theoretical but warrants proactive mitigation to prevent future exploitation.

CWE-308Use of Single-factor Authentication (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product uses an authentication algorithm that uses a single factor (e.g., a password) in a security context that should require more than one factor.
Architecture and Design
Use multiple independent authentication schemes, which ensures that -- if one of the methods is compromised -- the system itself is still likely safe from compromise. For this reason, if multiple schemes are possible, they should be implemented and required -- especially if they are easy to use.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V2.8.7 (opens in a new tab)
V2.6.1 (opens in a new tab)
V2.3.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Dictionary-based Password Attack (opens in a new tab)
Password Brute Forcing (opens in a new tab)
Kerberoasting (opens in a new tab)
Rainbow Table Password Cracking (opens in a new tab)
Remote Services with Stolen Credentials (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

cipplanner.com/cve-2024-50618-cve-public-notification-of-resolution/ (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 19 Feb 2026, 13:56 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-308

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats