CigesApplication · Atisoluciones

CVE-2024-2728

MEDIUM · 5.5 CVSS v3.1 Published 2024-03-22
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
57/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
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
Information exposure vulnerability in the CIGESv2 system. This vulnerability could allow a local attacker to intercept traffic due to the lack of proper implementation of the TLS protocol.

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

CIGESv2 improperly implements the TLS protocol, allowing a local attacker to intercept network traffic. The vulnerability stems from insufficient TLS configuration or implementation flaws that expose sensitive data in transit.

MitigationImplement proper TLS configuration with strong cipher suites, valid certificates, and appropriate protocol versions (TLS 1.2 or higher). Conduct a thorough review of the TLS implementation to identify and remediate all misconfigurations.

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
CigesApplication
Affected:= 2.0

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
Local
Complexity
Low
Privileges
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
None
Availability
None

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

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 Atisoluciones Ciges installation
    Locate and verify the installed version of Atisoluciones Ciges on the system. Use system inventory tools, installed software lists, or check the application's version information (typically accessible via the application itself, its installation directory, or system registry).
    Affected if The installed version is Atisoluciones Ciges version 2.0
  2. Verify TLS protocol configuration
    Examine the TLS settings within the Ciges application configuration files or settings panel. Look for the configured protocol versions (such as TLS 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3) and identify which versions are enabled or supported.
    Affected if TLS 1.0 or TLS 1.1 is enabled, or no protocol version restriction is configured (vulnerable to protocol downgrade attacks)
  3. Inspect cipher suite settings
    Review the TLS cipher suite configuration in Ciges. Check which cipher suites are enabled or configured, typically found in configuration files or the TLS settings interface.
    Affected if Weak or deprecated cipher suites are enabled (such as NULL, anonymous, or export-grade ciphers)
  4. Validate TLS certificate configuration
    Examine the TLS/SSL certificate settings within Ciges. Check for proper certificate validation, expiration status, and whether valid certificates from trusted CAs are configured.
    Affected if Certificates are missing, self-signed without proper validation, expired, or improperly configured
  5. Assess network traffic exposure
    Use network capture tools (such as Wireshark or tcpdump) to observe TLS traffic between Ciges and connected clients or servers. Verify whether encrypted traffic is properly secured or if sensitive data is transmitted in cleartext.
    Affected if Network traffic inspection reveals unencrypted sensitive data or demonstrates that TLS encryption is not being applied correctly

A user is affected if Atisoluciones Ciges version 2.0 is installed and its TLS implementation permits weak protocol versions, weak ciphers, invalid certificates, or fails to properly encrypt network traffic.

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 proper TLS configuration with strong cipher suites, valid certificates, and appropriate protocol versions (TLS 1.2 or higher). Conduct a thorough review of the TLS implementation to identify and remediate all misconfigurations.

Fix this in Ciges Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation8.0 h
  • Implementation16.0 h
  • Testing8.0 h
  • Review / QA4.0 h
36.0 hours of engineering $6,400
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $10,240.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-2728 — 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-2024-2728 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