CVE-2024-55550VulnerabilityPublished 10 Dec 2024Updated 4 Aug 2026

CVE-2024-55550: Mitel MiCollab · n/a

Affects Mitel MiCollabSource CVE Database V5

Exploited in the wild · used in ransomware campaigns · KEV due 28 Jan 2025 · public detection template (Nuclei) · 38% EPSS : apply the vendor's fix or mitigations to Mitel MiCollab now.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.4Medium

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

KEV deadline: 28 Jan 2025 US federal agencies must patch by this date; a sensible deadline for everyone else.
Ransomware: Used in ransomware campaigns
EPSS: 38.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 98% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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

Attack Vector: Local: The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Either: the attacker exploits the vulnerability by accessing the target system locally (e.g., keyboard, console), or remotely (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., tricking a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
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: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

t = 0 is the CVE’s publication on cve.org

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 10 Dec 2024
Detectable: evidence found.
nuclei template: Mitel MiCollab - Arbitary File Read
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: evidence found.
Listed in CISA KEV 28 days after disclosure
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

CVE ID reserved
by mitre
2024-12-08, 2 days before disclosure
CVE published
on cve.org
2024-12-10, t = 0
Added to CISA KEV (opens in a new tab)
exploitation confirmed · ransomware use known
2025-01-07, 28 days after disclosure
KEV remediation due
US federal deadline
2025-01-28, 49 days after disclosure

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), CISA KEV (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

Apply mitigations per vendor instructions or discontinue use of the product if mitigations are unavailable.

Description

Mitel MiCollab through 9.8 SP2 could allow an authenticated attacker with administrative privilege to conduct a local file read, due to insufficient input sanitization. A successful exploit could allow the authenticated admin attacker to access resources that are constrained to the admin access level, and the disclosure is limited to non-sensitive system information. This vulnerability does not allow file modification or privilege escalation.

Impact

An authenticated attacker with administrative privileges can read local files that are normally restricted to admin access. The information disclosed is limited to non-sensitive system information. There is no impact on file integrity or availability, and no privilege escalation is possible through this vulnerability.

Mitigation

Until a fix is available, restrict administrative access to trusted personnel only and follow best practices for credential management.

CWE-22Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #6OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but the product does not properly neutralize special elements within the pathname that can cause the pathname to resolve to a location that is outside of the restricted directory.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
Architecture and Design
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks…
Implementation · Input Validation
Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Path Traversal (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes and URL Encoding Combined to Bypass Validation Logic (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls (opens in a new tab)
Using Escaped Slashes in Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes in Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

Timeline

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 4 Aug 2026, 13:19 UTC

Public exploits and detectiona Nuclei detection template

WeaknessesCWE-22

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats