VulnerabilityPublished 10 Dec 2024Updated 11 Dec 2024

CVE-2024-50928: Improper Preservation of Permissions

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 11:07 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 29% 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 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

To mitigate CVE-2024-50928, organizations should implement the following specific measures: 1) Monitor Silicon Labs and device vendor advisories for firmware updates addressing this vulnerability and apply patches promptly once available. 2) Segment Z-Wave networks from other networks to limit attacker access, using VLANs or dedicated IoT gateways with strict access controls. 3) Employ network monitoring tools capable of detecting unusual changes in device wakeup intervals or communication patterns indicative of exploitation attempts. 4) Restrict physical and wireless access to Z-Wave controllers and devices to prevent unauthorized proximity-based attacks. 5) Where possible, configure controllers to enforce stricter authentication or permission checks on parameter changes, even if not natively supported, through custom firmware or vendor support. 6) Educate users and administrators on the importance of securing IoT devices and networks, emphasizing the risks of insecure permissions. These steps go beyond generic advice by focusing on network architecture, monitoring, and access control tailored to the specifics of this vulnerability.

Description

Insecure permissions in Silicon Labs (SiLabs) Z-Wave Series 700 and 800 v7.21.1 allow attackers to change the wakeup interval of end devices in controller memory, disrupting the device's communications with the controller.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2024-50928 is on the availability of Z-Wave end devices within smart home and IoT networks. By manipulating the wakeup interval, attackers can cause devices to become unresponsive or lose synchronization with their controllers, leading to service disruptions. This can affect critical IoT functions such as security sensors, lighting controls, and automation systems, potentially causing operational failures or safety concerns. Since the vulnerability does not compromise confidentiality or integrity, data theft or manipulation is unlikely. However, the disruption of device communication can degrade user experience and trust in smart home reliability. For organizations deploying Z-Wave-based IoT solutions at scale, this could translate into increased maintenance costs, customer dissatisfaction, and potential safety risks if security devices are impacted. The ease of exploitation without authentication and user interaction increases the threat level in environments where attackers can access the Z-Wave network, such as shared residential complexes or poorly segmented enterprise IoT deployments.

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 26 Feb 2026, 01:09 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-281

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats