VulnerabilityPublished 22 Nov 2024Updated 13 Jan 2025

CVE-2024-51074: Incorrect Access Control

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.7 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.7Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 19% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Physical
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: Low
Availability: High

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

Attack Vector: Physical: The attack requires the attacker to physically touch or manipulate the vulnerable component. Physical interaction may be brief or persistent.
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: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
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: 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 22 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 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 this vulnerability, organizations and vehicle owners should ensure that physical access to the vehicle's CAN bus is strictly controlled and monitored. Automotive service centers and fleet operators should implement secure diagnostic procedures that restrict unauthorized access to the instrument cluster and CAN network. Manufacturers should consider firmware updates that enforce stricter access controls on odometer modification commands, including authentication and integrity checks aligned with the UDS protocol. Deployment of intrusion detection systems (IDS) for in-vehicle networks can help detect anomalous CAN messages indicative of tampering attempts. Additionally, integrating cryptographic protections and secure boot mechanisms in ECUs can prevent unauthorized firmware or message injection. Regular audits and inspections of vehicle instrument clusters and odometer readings can help detect inconsistencies early. Collaboration with suppliers to validate test environments and ensure realistic security assessments is also recommended to avoid false positives or underestimations of risk.

Description

Incorrect access control in KIA Seltos vehicle instrument cluster with software and hardware v1.0 allows attackers to arbitrarily change odometer readings in the vehicle by targeting the instrument cluster through the unsecured CAN network. NOTE: this is disputed by the supplier because the CAN bus is not externally exposed, and because the packets can only increase the odometer reading (which typically has no value to an adversary). Also, this is disputed by the Supplier because the findings came from a potentially unrealistic test environment (an isolated ECU part that was not in a vehicle), and because the observed behavior follows the UDS (Unified Diagnostic Services) specification.

Impact

The primary impact of this vulnerability is the potential manipulation of the vehicle's odometer reading, which can affect vehicle resale value, warranty claims, and maintenance records. While the ability to only increase the odometer limits some fraudulent uses, it still undermines trust in vehicle data integrity. There is no direct impact on vehicle safety or operational control, so the risk to driver safety or vehicle availability is low. However, organizations involved in vehicle fleet management, resale, or leasing could face financial and reputational risks if odometer tampering occurs undetected. The requirement for physical or CAN network access limits the scope of exploitation, reducing the likelihood of widespread attacks. The lack of known exploits in the wild further reduces immediate risk, but the vulnerability highlights potential weaknesses in vehicle network security and access controls that could be exploited in more complex attack scenarios.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…