Path TraversalWeakness · CWE-22

CVE-2024-27173

CRITICAL · 9.8 CVSS v3.1 Published 2024-06-14
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
100/100
Remediation priority · Urgent
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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
Remote Command program allows an attacker to get Remote Code Execution by overwriting existing Python files containing executable code. This vulnerability can be executed in combination with other vulnerabilities and difficult to execute alone. So, the CVSS score for this vulnerability alone is lower than the score listed in the "Base Score" of this vulnerability. For detail on related other vulnerabilities, please ask to the below contact point. https://www.toshibatec.com/contacts/products/ As for the affected products/models/versions, see the reference URL.

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 · moderate confidence

A remote command program vulnerability in affected Toshiba Tec products allows an attacker to overwrite existing Python files containing executable code, leading to remote code execution. The vulnerability requires chaining with other vulnerabilities and is difficult to exploit as a standalone issue.

MitigationRestrict file write permissions on the system, implement strict input validation on the remote command interface, and apply vendor patches when available. If the remote command feature is not required, disable it.

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
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/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 checks

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

  1. Identify the Toshiba Tec product
    Run 'systeminfo' or check system documentation to confirm the device is a Toshiba Tec product and note the exact model number
    Affected if The device is a Toshiba Tec product with remote command functionality
  2. Determine the installed firmware/software version
    Check the product's web interface, system settings, or run vendor-specific commands to retrieve the current software version
    Affected if The installed version matches or falls within the vendor's affected version range for this CVE
  3. Verify if remote command feature is enabled
    Check the product's configuration settings, typically found in administration or network settings menus, for the remote command or remote execution feature
    Affected if Remote command functionality is enabled and accessible over the network
  4. Inspect file permissions on Python installation directories
    Use file system commands to check write permissions on Python directories (typically C:\Python or /usr/lib/python) and script directories
    Affected if The account running the service has write access to Python library or script directories
  5. Review access controls on the remote command interface
    Examine network ACLs, firewall rules, and authentication settings for the remote command interface to determine if unauthenticated or low-privileged access is possible
    Affected if The remote command interface lacks strong authentication or is exposed to untrusted networks

A user is affected if they have a Toshiba Tec product with the remote command feature enabled, running a version within the affected range, where the Python file system is writable by the service account.

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

Restrict file write permissions on the system, implement strict input validation on the remote command interface, and apply vendor patches when available. If the remote command feature is not required, disable it.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation8.0 h
  • Testing6.0 h
  • Review / QA4.0 h
22.0 hours of engineering $3,860
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-27173 — 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-2024-27173 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