CVE-2024-50924VulnerabilityPublished 10 Dec 2024Updated 11 Dec 2024

CVE-2024-50924: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 33% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Adjacent: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared physical (e.g., Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11) or logical (e.g., local IP subnet) network, or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN to an administrative network zone).
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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 10 Dec 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 2026-10-25.

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

1. Network Segmentation: Isolate Z-Wave controllers and devices on separate network segments or VLANs to limit exposure to potential attackers. 2. Physical Security: Restrict physical and radio access to Z-Wave controllers to prevent attackers from gaining proximity. 3. Monitoring: Implement network monitoring to detect unusual or repeated packet transmissions to the Z-Wave controller indicative of an attack. 4. Firmware Updates: Regularly check for and apply firmware updates from Silicon Labs or device vendors once patches addressing this vulnerability are released. 5. Access Controls: Where possible, configure Z-Wave network permissions to restrict device pairing and communication to authorized devices only. 6. Incident Response: Develop and test response plans for denial of service incidents affecting smart home or IoT systems. 7. Vendor Coordination: Engage with device manufacturers and Silicon Labs for timely information on patches and mitigations. 8. Alternative Technologies: Consider fallback or redundant communication methods for critical systems relying on Z-Wave devices to maintain availability during attacks.

Description

Insecure permissions in Silicon Labs (SiLabs) Z-Wave Series 700 and 800 v7.21.1 allow attackers to cause disrupt communications between the controller and the device itself via repeatedly sending crafted packets to the controller.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2024-50924 is the disruption of availability for Z-Wave smart home and IoT networks. By repeatedly sending crafted packets, an attacker can cause denial of service conditions that prevent the controller from communicating with devices, potentially disabling automation, security systems, lighting, or other critical functions. This can lead to operational disruptions, user inconvenience, and potential safety risks in environments relying on these devices. Since confidentiality and integrity are not affected, data leakage or manipulation is not a concern. However, the loss of availability in smart home or building automation systems can have significant operational and safety implications. Organizations with large-scale deployments of Silicon Labs Z-Wave devices, such as smart building operators, utilities, and residential IoT users, are at risk. The requirement for network proximity limits remote exploitation but does not eliminate risk, especially in dense urban or multi-tenant environments where attackers could gain radio access.

CWE-281Improper Preservation of Permissions (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product does not preserve permissions or incorrectly preserves permissions when copying, restoring, or sharing objects, which can cause them to have less restrictive permissions than intended.
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

github.com/CNK2100/2024-CVE/blob/main/README.md (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 28 Feb 2026, 02:36 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-281

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats