CVE-2024-50811VulnerabilityPublished 8 Nov 2024Updated 21 Nov 2024

CVE-2024-50811: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.1 Critical.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

9.1Critical

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 29% 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:H/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
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: 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: 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 8 Nov 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 2026-10-26.

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-2024-50811, organizations should first seek official patches or updates from hopetree izone vendors as they become available. In the absence of patches, implement strict input validation and sanitization on all user-supplied URLs processed by push_urls() and get_urls() functions to ensure only authorized and safe endpoints are reachable. Employ network-level controls such as firewall rules or web application firewalls (WAFs) to restrict outbound HTTP requests from the affected server to trusted destinations only. Monitor logs for unusual outbound requests indicative of SSRF exploitation attempts. Segregate and harden internal services to minimize the impact of SSRF if exploited. Conduct regular security assessments and penetration testing focusing on SSRF vectors. Additionally, consider implementing allowlists for URLs and disabling unnecessary push functionality temporarily if feasible. Educate development teams on secure coding practices to prevent similar vulnerabilities in future releases.

Description

hopetree izone lts c011b48 contains a server-side request forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in the active push function as \\apps\\tool\\apis\\bd_push.py does not securely filter user input through push_urls() and get_urls().

Impact

The impact of CVE-2024-50811 is significant for organizations running hopetree izone lts c011b48. Exploitation can lead to unauthorized access to internal network resources that are otherwise inaccessible externally, potentially exposing sensitive information such as internal APIs, databases, or configuration files. Attackers could use the SSRF to bypass network segmentation, conduct reconnaissance, or launch further attacks like remote code execution if combined with other vulnerabilities. The confidentiality and integrity of data are at high risk, while availability is less likely to be directly affected. Given the lack of authentication and user interaction requirements, attackers can exploit this vulnerability remotely and at scale. This could lead to data breaches, intellectual property theft, and compromise of critical infrastructure. Organizations in sectors such as government, finance, healthcare, and technology that rely on hopetree izone lts for critical operations face heightened risks. The absence of known exploits in the wild currently provides a window for proactive defense, but the critical severity demands immediate attention.

CWE-918Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessCWE Top 25 (2025): #22OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The web server receives a URL or similar request from an upstream component and retrieves the contents of this URL, but it does not sufficiently ensure that the request is being sent to the expected destination.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Server Side Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Scripting Prevention (opens in a new tab)
DOM based XSS Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.6.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.2.6 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Server Side Request Forgery (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

github.com/Hopetree/izone/issues/290 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 26 Feb 2026, 01:06 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats