CWE-36Weakness · CWE-36

CVE-2024-12643

HIGH · 8.1 CVSS v3.1 Published 2024-12-16
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
88/100
Remediation priority · High
Remotely reachable No privileges

Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.

NVD · unedited
The tbm-client from Chunghwa Telecom has an Arbitrary File Delete vulnerability. The application sets up a simple local web server and provides APIs for communication with the target website. Due to the lack of CSRF protection in the APIs, unauthenticated remote attackers could use these APIs through phishing. Additionally, one of the APIs contains an Absolute Path Traversal vulnerability, allowing attackers to delete arbitrary files on the user's system.

Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.

dbcve analysis · high confidence

The tbm-client from Chunghwa Telecom runs a local web server with APIs that lack CSRF protection, enabling unauthenticated remote attackers to invoke these APIs via phishing. One API contains an Absolute Path Traversal vulnerability allowing attackers to delete arbitrary files on the victim's system.

MitigationImplement CSRF protection (anti-CSRF tokens, SameSite cookie attributes) on all APIs and add proper path validation to prevent absolute path traversal. Consider adding authentication to APIs as an additional defense layer.

Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.

CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.

From the vector
Attack vector
Network
Complexity
Low
Privileges
None
User interaction
Required
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
High
Availability
High

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

Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.

dbcve checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Verify tbm-client installation
    Check if the tbm-client software from Chunghwa Telecom is installed on the system. Look for its installation directory or check installed programs list.
    Affected if tbm-client is installed and the vulnerable web server component is running.
  2. Identify the local web server port
    Check running processes and listening network ports for the tbm-client service. Look for any local HTTP service running on a port (commonly 8080, 8000, or similar).
    Affected if A local web server is bound to localhost or 127.0.0.1.
  3. Confirm API accessibility
    Send a test request to the local web server endpoints using curl or a browser to verify the APIs are reachable. Check if any API accepts file deletion operations.
    Affected if The web server responds to API requests without requiring authentication or CSRF tokens.
  4. Test for path traversal vulnerability
    If accessible, attempt to invoke the file deletion API with an absolute path parameter pointing outside the expected directory (e.g., /etc/passwd or C:\Windows\system32\config).
    Affected if The API accepts absolute paths and allows deletion of arbitrary files outside the intended scope.
  5. Review web server configuration
    Examine the tbm-client configuration files for any settings related to web server binding, authentication requirements, or API access controls.
    Affected if The web server is configured to accept connections without CSRF protection or proper authentication.

You are affected if tbm-client is installed with its local web server running and the APIs are accessible without CSRF protection or authentication, allowing remote exploitation via phishing.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.

From vendor data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Implement CSRF protection (anti-CSRF tokens, SameSite cookie attributes) on all APIs and add proper path validation to prevent absolute path traversal. Consider adding authentication to APIs as an additional defense layer.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation8.0 h
  • Testing4.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
18.0 hours of engineering $3,200
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,120.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-12643 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2024-12643 in production — separate from our analysis above.

No notes yet

Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.

What this is

A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.

What belongs here
  • Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
  • Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
  • No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
  • No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data