CVE-2024-55565VulnerabilityPublished 9 Dec 2024Updated 3 Nov 2025

CVE-2024-55565: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.3 Medium · fixed in 5.0.9 : update affected systems when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 08:30 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.6% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 51% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 5.0.9

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: Low
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: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
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: 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: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 9 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 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

The most effective mitigation is to upgrade all instances of the Nano ID library to version 5.0.9 or 3.3.8, where the vulnerability is fixed. Organizations should audit their software dependencies using automated tools (e.g., npm audit, Snyk, or similar) to identify vulnerable versions of Nano ID. For projects that cannot immediately upgrade, implement input validation to ensure only integer values are passed to Nano ID functions, mitigating the mishandling of non-integer inputs. Additionally, review application logic that relies on Nano ID-generated identifiers to detect anomalies or collisions that may indicate exploitation attempts. Incorporate runtime monitoring and logging around identifier generation and usage to detect unusual patterns. Educate development teams about secure dependency management and the risks of using outdated libraries. Finally, maintain an up-to-date inventory of open-source components and subscribe to vulnerability feeds to respond promptly to new advisories.

Description

nanoid (aka Nano ID) before 5.0.9 mishandles non-integer values.3.3.8 is also a fixed version.

Impact

For European organizations, the primary impact is on data integrity where Nano ID is used for generating unique identifiers in applications, such as session tokens, database keys, or API keys. If exploited, attackers could potentially cause collisions or predict identifiers, leading to unauthorized access, data corruption, or logic bypasses in systems relying on these IDs for security or operational logic. While confidentiality and availability are not directly affected, integrity violations can cascade into broader security issues, especially in financial, healthcare, or governmental applications where identifier uniqueness is critical. The medium severity rating indicates a moderate risk that should not be ignored, particularly for organizations with complex software supply chains or those developing custom software using vulnerable Nano ID versions. The absence of known exploits reduces immediate urgency but does not eliminate risk, as attackers may develop exploits over time. European entities with extensive use of JavaScript frameworks and Node.js environments are more exposed, especially those in sectors with stringent data integrity requirements.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 3 Nov 2025, 23:24 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-835

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats