CVE-2024-9257VulnerabilityPublished 22 Nov 2024

CVE-2024-9257: Logsign Unified SecOps Platform · Improper Input Validation

Affects Logsign Unified SecOps PlatformSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.0 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 49% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:3.0/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 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 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Logsign Unified SecOps Platform	Affected =6.4.24	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Organizations should implement the following specific mitigations: 1) Apply vendor patches or updates as soon as they become available to fix the input validation flaw. 2) Restrict access to the delete_gsuite_key_file endpoint to only trusted and necessary users, employing the principle of least privilege. 3) Implement strong authentication mechanisms, including multi-factor authentication, to reduce risk of credential compromise. 4) Monitor and audit file deletion operations and access logs related to the vulnerable endpoint for suspicious activity. 5) Employ application-layer input validation controls or web application firewalls (WAFs) to detect and block malicious filename inputs targeting this endpoint. 6) Conduct regular security reviews of user permissions and endpoint exposure within the Logsign platform. 7) Consider network segmentation to isolate the SecOps platform from less trusted network zones. These measures go beyond generic advice by focusing on access control, monitoring, and layered defenses specific to the vulnerability context.

Description

Logsign Unified SecOps Platform delete_gsuite_key_file Input Validation Arbitrary File Deletion Vulnerability. This vulnerability allows remote attackers to delete arbitrary files within sensitive directories on affected installations of Logsign Unified SecOps Platform. Authentication is required to exploit this vulnerability. The specific flaw exists within the delete_gsuite_key_file endpoint. The issue results from the lack of proper validation of a user-supplied filename prior to using it in file operations. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to delete critical files on the system. Was ZDI-CAN-25265.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2024-9257 is the loss of integrity due to arbitrary file deletion on systems running Logsign Unified SecOps Platform 6.4.24. Deletion of critical files could disrupt the platform’s functionality, potentially impairing security monitoring and incident response activities. This could lead to delayed detection of other attacks or loss of forensic data. Although confidentiality and availability are not directly affected, the operational impact on security teams could be significant, especially in environments relying heavily on this platform for unified security operations. Organizations with high dependency on Logsign for security orchestration and monitoring may face increased risk of operational disruption. The requirement for authentication limits exploitation to insiders or compromised accounts, but the low complexity of the attack increases risk if credentials are exposed. No known exploits in the wild reduce immediate risk, but the vulnerability should be addressed promptly to prevent future exploitation.

CWE-20Improper Input Validation (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #18OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Attack Surface Reduction
Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build "recognizers" for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of…
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
Architecture and Design · Implementation · Attack Surface Reduction
Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any…
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
SQL Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention in Java (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Buffer Overflow via Environment Variables (opens in a new tab)
Server Side Include (SSI) Injection (opens in a new tab)
Cross Zone Scripting (opens in a new tab)
Command Line Execution through SQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
Object Relational Mapping Injection (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 25 Feb 2026, 23:15 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-20

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats