Secure Firewall Management CenterApplication · Cisco
CVE-2024-20424
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 · uneditedA vulnerability in the web-based management interface of Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center (FMC) Software, formerly Firepower Management Center Software, could allow an authenticated, remote attacker to execute arbitrary commands on the underlying operating system as root. This vulnerability is due to insufficient input validation of certain HTTP requests. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by authenticating to the web-based management interface of an affected device and then sending a crafted HTTP request to the device. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to execute arbitrary commands with root permissions on the underlying operating system of the Cisco FMC device or to execute commands on managed Cisco Firepower Threat Defense (FTD) devices. To exploit this vulnerability, the attacker would need valid credentials for a user account with at least the role of Security Analyst (Read Only).
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 confidenceA command injection vulnerability in Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center's web-based management interface allows authenticated attackers with at least Read-Only (Security Analyst) privileges to execute arbitrary OS commands with root privileges by sending specially crafted HTTP requests. The flaw stems from insufficient input validation of certain HTTP parameters, enabling attackers to break out of expected command contexts and inject arbitrary shell commands.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data
Secure Firewall Management CenterApplication
= 6.2.3= 6.2.3.1= 6.2.3.2= 6.2.3.3= 6.2.3.4= 6.2.3.5= 6.2.3.6= 6.2.3.7= 6.2.3.8= 6.2.3.9= 6.2.3.10= 6.2.3.11CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Verify FMC versionLog into the FMC web interface and navigate to Help > About, or run 'show version' via CLI to confirm the installed software versionAffected if The installed version is 6.2.3, 6.2.3.1, 6.2.3.2, 6.2.3.3, 6.2.3.4, 6.2.3.5, 6.2.3.6, 6.2.3.7, 6.2.3.8, 6.2.3.9, 6.2.3.10, or 6.2.3.11
-
Confirm web management interface is accessibleCheck network accessibility of the FMC management interface on ports 443 or 8302 from untrusted networks using nmap or curl testsAffected if The FMC web UI is reachable from networks outside the trusted admin segment
-
Review FMC system logs for suspicious HTTP activityExamine /var/log/httpd/httperr.log or the FMC audit logs via the web UI for unusual or malformed HTTP requests, especially those containing shell metacharacters like ; | ` $ ( )Affected if Logs show HTTP requests with command injection patterns or unexpected parameter values to management endpoints
-
Check for unexpected root-level processesRun 'ps -ef' via FMC CLI and look for unusual processes or commands running as root that were not initiated by known admin activitiesAffected if There are unfamiliar root processes or commands that do not correspond to normal FMC operations
-
Verify user session audit logsAccess the FMC web UI audit logs (System > Logs > Audit) and review recent sessions for the Security Analyst role performing actions outside expected scopeAffected if Audit logs show Security Analyst accounts executing unexpected or unauthorized commands
You are affected if your Cisco FMC runs version 6.2.3 through 6.2.3.11 AND the web management interface is accessible to attackers, or if logs show evidence of command injection attempts.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
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 dataApply Cisco's available patches for FMC; if no patch exists, restrict management interface access to trusted admin networks using network segmentation and access control lists, and monitor for anomalous HTTP requests.
Fix this in Secure Firewall Management Center
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-20424 — 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 sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2024-20424 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
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.
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.
- 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