Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- EPSS is 20.73% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2024
CVE-2024-45518High confidence
It allows authenticated users to exploit Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) due to improper input sanitization and misconfigured domain whitelisting
Unknown · Unknown
8.8HighCVSS 3.1
Within 7 days
Mitigation availableHigh technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityHigh→Operational priority:High, unchanged from published severity.unchanged
Compensating controls
- Apply the linked authoritative mitigation while planning the permanent fix.
- Restrict the affected network interface to trusted sources where business-safe.
- Monitor vendor guidance and exploitation sources for a material change.
Verification
- Confirm that the asset runs Unknown Unknown and falls inside the recorded affected range.
- Recheck the vendor advisory before scheduling a change because no verified fixed version is currently retained.
- Validate exposure, authentication requirements and compensating controls in the actual environment.
- Reopen this reassessment when CVSS, KEV, EPSS, exploit evidence or remediation changes.
High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
Mitigation available01
What, why and how
An issue was discovered in Zimbra Collaboration (ZCS) 10.1.x before 10.1.1, 10.0.x before 10.0.9, 9.0.0 before Patch 41, and 8.8.15 before Patch 46. It allows authenticated users to exploit Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) due to improper input sanitization and misconfigured domain whitelisting. This issue permits unauthorized HTTP requests to be sent to internal services, which can lead to Remote Code Execution (RCE) by chaining Command Injection within the internal service. When combined with existing XSS vulnerabilities, this SSRF issue can further facilitate Remote Code Execution (RCE).
What
An issue was discovered in Zimbra Collaboration (ZCS) 10.1.x before 10.1.1, 10.0.x before 10.0.9, 9.0.0 before Patch 41, and 8.8.15 before Patch 46. It allows authenticated users to exploit Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) due to improper input sanitization and misconfigured domain whitelisting. This issue permits unauthorized HTTP requests to be sent to internal services, which can lead to Remote Code Execution (RCE) by chaining Command Injection within the internal service. When combined with existing XSS vulnerabilities, this SSRF issue can further facilitate Remote Code Execution (RCE).
Why
The server follows an attacker-influenced destination, allowing requests to systems or services the attacker cannot reach directly.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may execute code or commands in the affected security context.
What
An issue was discovered in Zimbra Collaboration (ZCS) 10.1.x before 10.1.1, 10.0.x before 10.0.9, 9.0.0 before Patch 41, and 8.8.15 before Patch 46. It allows authenticated users to exploit Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) due to improper input sanitization and misconfigured domain whitelisting. This issue permits unauthorized HTTP requests to be sent to internal services, which can lead to Remote Code Execution (RCE) by chaining Command Injection within the internal service. When combined with existing XSS vulnerabilities, this SSRF issue can further facilitate Remote Code Execution (RCE).
Why
The server follows an attacker-influenced destination, allowing requests to systems or services the attacker cannot reach directly.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may execute code or commands in the affected security context.
02
Exploit reality and attack path
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
Observed exploitation No confirmed evidence
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
Public PoC / exploit material None recorded
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.
- Likely attack path
- a network path → Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) → execute code or commands in the affected security context
- Attack surface
- Network
- Privileges required
- Low: a basic authenticated account is required
- User interaction
- None
- Attack complexity
- Low: no specialised conditions are recorded
- Security boundary
- Unchanged: impact remains within the vulnerable component's security authority
- Weakness
?
CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness. - CWE-918 ↗
CWE-918: Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF). 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.
- CVSS vector
?
CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity. CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
AVNetworkAttack vector: The vulnerable component can be reached over a network.ACLowAttack complexity: No specialised conditions are required beyond attacker-controlled input.PRLowPrivileges required: The attacker needs basic user-level privileges.UINoneUser interaction: No action by another user is required.SUnchangedScope: The security impact remains within the vulnerable component's authority.CHighConfidentiality impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.IHighIntegrity impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.AHighAvailability impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.- Post-exploitation / living off the land
- After compromise, an attacker may use built-in shells, scripting engines, scheduled tasks and native network utilities for discovery, persistence or movement. This is a plausible LoTL path, not evidence that it has occurred for every attack.
03
Patch and workaround
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
- Status
?
Patch availability is based on structured fixed-version fields and authoritative update references. If no fix is verified, check the vendor advisory before making a change. - Mitigation available
- Action
- UPDATE: Het NCSC heeft op Github een tool beschikbaar gesteld die gebruikt kan worden om een eventuele webshell die middels deze kwetsbaarheid is geplaatst te detecteren. Synacor heeft updates uitgebracht om de kwetsbaarheden te verhelpen. Zie bijgevoegde referenties voor meer informatie en de link naar de scantool op Github.
- Workaround
- No verified workaround is recorded. If business-safe, reduce exposure to the affected interface and allow only trusted sources until authoritative guidance is available.
04
Evidence and provenance
Published 22 Oct 2024 · Last source change 22 Oct 2024, 18:10 UTC · CWE-918 · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.1
CVSS sourceNIST NVD
EPSS source FIRST · tracked since 2026-08-14
?
The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2024-41519
Product sourceUnavailable
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceCISA ADP
NVD statusNVD enriched
Missing structured fields: affected product. Missing data is not evidence of low risk; review the primary advisory.
Material change intelligence
View recent updates ↗What changed after publication
- Remediation statusRemediation status changed from Awaiting fix to Mitigation available.NCSC-NL ↗
- Before
- Awaiting fix
- After
- Mitigation available
CVE published
Remediation guidance recorded
Technical terms and abbreviations used in this report
- CVE
- Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures: the public identifier for one disclosed vulnerability.
- CVSS
- Common Vulnerability Scoring System: a technical severity framework; it is not patching priority by itself.
- EPSS
- Exploit Prediction Scoring System: FIRST's estimate of the probability that exploitation activity will be observed in the next 30 days; it is a forecast, not confirmation.
- CWE
- Common Weakness Enumeration: the standard category describing the underlying software or hardware weakness.
- CNA
- CVE Numbering Authority: an organisation authorised to assign and publish CVE records.
- CISA ADP
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Authorized Data Publisher: structured enrichment added to a CVE record.
- NVD
- National Vulnerability Database: NIST's enrichment service for CVE records.
- CERT / CSIRT
- A computer security incident response team that publishes warnings or coordinates incident response.
- PoC
- Proof of concept: public material that demonstrates or helps reproduce exploitation.
- CSAF
- Common Security Advisory Framework: a machine-readable format for security advisories.
- LoTL
- Living off the land: abuse of legitimate tools or system functions during an attack.