CVE-2024-28013
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 · uneditedUse of Insufficiently Random Values vulnerability in NEC Corporation Aterm WG1800HP4, WG1200HS3, WG1900HP2, WG1200HP3, WG1800HP3, WG1200HS2, WG1900HP, WG1200HP2, W1200EX(-MS), WG1200HS, WG1200HP, WF300HP2, W300P, WF800HP, WR8165N, WG2200HP, WF1200HP2, WG1800HP2, WF1200HP, WG600HP, WG300HP, WF300HP, WG1800HP, WG1400HP, WR8175N, WR9300N, WR8750N, WR8160N, WR9500N, WR8600N, WR8370N, WR8170N, WR8700N, WR8300N, WR8150N, WR4100N, WR4500N, WR8100N, WR8500N, CR2500P, WR8400N, WR8200N, WR1200H, WR7870S, WR6670S, WR7850S, WR6650S, WR6600H, WR7800H, WM3400RN, WM3450RN, WM3500R, WM3600R, WM3800R, WR8166N, MR01LN MR02LN, WG1810HP(JE) and WG1810HP(MF) all versions allows a attacker to change settings via the internet.
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 confidenceThe vulnerability stems from insufficient randomness in cryptographic operations within the affected Aterm router firmware. This weakness likely affects session tokens, authentication tokens, or similar security-sensitive values, allowing remote attackers to predict or brute-force these values and subsequently change router settings via the internet.
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 dataall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsCVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify your Aterm router modelLocate the model label on the device physical casing or log into the router web interface and check the status or information page for the exact model numberAffected if The model matches any of: Wg1800hp4, Wg1200hs3, Wg1900hp2, Wg1200hp3, Wg1800hp3, Wr7850s, Wr6650s, Wr6600h
-
Confirm the firmware versionAccess the router administration panel (typically at 192.168.0.1 or 192.168.1.1), navigate to the firmware or status page, and record the installed firmware version stringAffected if Any firmware version is installed on one of the affected models (all versions are vulnerable)
-
Check if remote management is enabledIn the router web interface, locate the remote management or remote access settings (often under Advanced, Administration, or Security settings) and verify whether remote management from the internet/WAN is turned onAffected if Remote management or remote administration access from the internet is enabled and the router is one of the affected models
-
Verify WAN-facing web interface accessibilityAttempt to access the router login page from an external network using the public IP address, or review port forwarding/firewall rules to determine if HTTP/HTTPS ports (80/443) are open to the WAN interfaceAffected if The router administrative web interface is reachable from the internet on a public IP address
-
Check for predictable session tokensOpen two separate browser incognito windows, attempt to log into the router, and compare the session identifiers, cookies, or authentication tokens generated for each session to see if they follow a predictable patternAffected if Session tokens or authentication tokens appear to have low entropy, sequential patterns, or are easily predictable between multiple login attempts
You are affected if you own any of the listed Aterm models with any firmware version and have remote management exposed to the internet, making the predictable tokens exploitable by remote attackers.
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 dataNEC should implement cryptographically secure pseudo-random number generation (CSPRNG) for all security-sensitive values. Users should disable remote management interfaces if not needed, and apply vendor firmware updates when available.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation24.0 h
- Testing12.0 h
- Review / QA8.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $14,016.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-28013 — 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-2024-28013 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