VulnerabilityPublished 9 Aug 2024Updated 5 Aug 2026

CVE-2024-42467: Org.openhab.ui.bundles:org.openhab.ui.cometvisu: CometVisu Backend for openHAB affected by SSRF/XSS

Affects org.openhab.ui.bundles:org.openhab.ui.cometvisuSource GCVE Database

Compare

Authoritative record:CVE-2024-42467· Critical 10.0

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 10.0 Critical : upgrade to 4.2.1 as a priority.

Data as of 12 Nov 2026, 23:23 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

10.0Critical

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

EPSS: 1.0% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 64% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 4.2.1

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
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: 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: 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 9 Aug 2024
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: 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 13 Nov 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.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), 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

Upgrade org.openhab.ui.bundles:org.openhab.ui.cometvisu to 4.2.1.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Mavenorg.openhab.ui.bundles:org.openhab.ui.cometvisu	Affected >=3.4.0.M4 <4.2.1	Fixed in 4.2.1

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

AI-suggested

A patch is available for this vulnerability and should be applied promptly. Since the proxy endpoint is unauthenticated and exploitable, upgrading to the fixed version of the CometVisu add-on is the recommended remediation. No vendor advisory content contradicts this; therefore, patching is the primary mitigation.

Description

The [proxy endpoint](https://github.com/openhab/openhab-webui/blob/1c03c60f84388b9d7da0231df2d4ebb1e17d3fcf/bundles/org.openhab.ui.cometvisu/src/main/java/org/openhab/ui/cometvisu/internal/backend/rest/ProxyResource.java#L83) of openHAB's CometVisu add-on can be accessed without authentication. This proxy-feature can be exploited as Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) to induce GET HTTP requests to internal-only servers, in case openHAB is exposed in a non-private network. Furthermore, this proxy-feature can also be exploited as a Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability, as an attacker is able to re-route a request to their server and return a page with malicious JavaScript code. Since the browser receives this data directly from the openHAB CometVisu UI, this JavaScript code will be executed with the origin of the CometVisu UI. This allows an attacker to exploit call endpoints on an openHAB server even if the openHAB server is located in a private network. (e.g. by sending an openHAB admin a link that proxies malicious JavaScript.) This vulnerability was discovered with the help of CodeQL's [Server-side request forgery](https://codeql.github.com/codeql-query-help/java/java-ssrf/) query. ## Impact This issue may lead up to Remote Code Execution (RCE) when chained with other vulnerabilities (see: GHSL-2024-007).

Impact

Successful exploitation can allow attackers to perform SSRF attacks, accessing internal network resources not normally reachable externally. The XSS vulnerability enables execution of arbitrary JavaScript in the context of the CometVisu UI, potentially allowing attackers to interact with the openHAB server as if they were authorized users. This can lead to further compromise, including Remote Code Execution when combined with other vulnerabilities.

Summary

The openHAB CometVisu add-on's proxy endpoint is unauthenticated and vulnerable to SSRF, allowing attackers to induce GET requests to internal-only servers when openHAB is exposed externally. It also allows XSS attacks by enabling attackers to serve malicious JavaScript through the proxy, executing with the UI's origin. This can be leveraged to call endpoints on openHAB servers even within private networks. The vulnerability was identified using CodeQL SSRF queries and is tracked as CVE-2024-42467 with a critical CVSS 3.1 score of 10. The issue may lead to Remote Code Execution if chained with other vulnerabilities such as GHSL-2024-007. A patch is available to remediate this vulnerability.

CWE-918Server-Side Request Forgery (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.
Implementation · Operation
If there is a known list of applications, IP, hostname, and/or domains to which the product is allowed to communicate, then use allowlists to ensure that outgoing requests are restricted to these known entities. The allowlists could be in the application code or possibly enforced by firewalls or network segmentation.
Implementation · Operation
If the product is expected to be able to connect to arbitrary IP addresses or domains, consider using a denylist that includes private network addresses, internal domain names, etc. The denylist could be in the application code or possibly enforced by firewalls or network segmentation.
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.
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

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 5 Aug 2026, 15:32 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats