VulnerabilityPublished 30 Oct 2024Updated 31 Oct 2024

CVE-2024-51242: eladmin · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Affects eladminSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 12:54 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 36% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: High
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: High: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable component that could affect component-wide settings and files.
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 30 Oct 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubshadia0/eladmin`pkg:github/shadia0/eladmin`Other threats	Affected <=2.7	Fixed in–

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2024-51242, organizations should: 1) Immediately review and restrict access to the ServerDeployController endpoint, limiting it to trusted administrators and internal networks only. 2) Implement strict input validation and sanitization on the 'ip' parameter to ensure only authorized and valid IP addresses are accepted, blocking requests to internal or private IP ranges. 3) Employ network-level controls such as firewall rules or egress filtering to prevent the server from making unauthorized outbound requests to sensitive internal resources. 4) Monitor logs for unusual outbound requests originating from the eladmin server that could indicate exploitation attempts. 5) If patches become available, prioritize their deployment. 6) Consider deploying Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) with custom rules to detect and block SSRF patterns targeting this parameter. 7) Conduct regular security assessments and penetration tests focusing on SSRF vectors within eladmin deployments. These steps go beyond generic advice by focusing on access control, input validation, network segmentation, and proactive monitoring specific to this vulnerability.

Description

A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability has been identified in eladmin 2.7 and earlier in ServerDeployController.java. The manipulation of the HTTP Body ip parameter leads to SSRF.

Impact

The SSRF vulnerability in eladmin 2.7 and earlier can lead to unauthorized access to internal network resources, potentially exposing sensitive data or internal services that are otherwise inaccessible externally. Attackers with high privileges could exploit this flaw to bypass network segmentation, access metadata services, or interact with internal APIs, leading to data breaches or further compromise of the environment. The integrity of internal systems could be undermined if attackers manipulate server requests to alter or inject malicious data. While availability is not directly impacted, the confidentiality and integrity risks are significant, especially in environments where eladmin is used to manage critical infrastructure or sensitive deployments. Organizations worldwide using eladmin in production environments face risks of lateral movement and data exfiltration if this vulnerability is exploited.

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/shadia0/Patienc/blob/main/eladmin_ssrf.md (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 28 Feb 2026, 02:51 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats