CVE-2024-28021
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 exists in the FOXMAN-UN/UNEM server that affects the message queueing mechanism’s certificate validation. If exploited an attacker could spoof a trusted entity causing a loss of confidentiality and integrity.
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 FOXMAN-UN/UNEM server contains a certificate validation vulnerability in its message queueing mechanism. An attacker could exploit this flaw to spoof a trusted entity by presenting a malicious certificate, resulting in compromised confidentiality and integrity of data in transit.
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= r15b= r16b= r15a= r16a= r15a= r15b= r16a= r16bCVSS 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
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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 installed product and versionLocate the Hitachienergy Foxman-UN or UNEM installation and determine the exact version number (r15a, r15b, r16a, or r16b)Affected if The installed version is r15a, r15b, r16a, or r16b for either Foxman-UN or UNEM products
-
Verify message queueing is in useDetermine if the message queueing mechanism is enabled or configured in the Foxman-UN or UNEM installationAffected if The message queueing system is actively used or configured in the environment
-
Inspect certificate validation settings for message queueReview the configuration files or settings related to the message queueing system to identify how certificate validation is implementedAffected if Certificate validation is missing, disabled, or improperly configured for the message queue connection
-
Check TLS/mutual TLS configurationExamine the TLS or mTLS settings used by the message queueing mechanism to verify if trusted certificates are properly configuredAffected if TLS is not properly configured with certificate chain verification, hostname validation, or revocation checking disabled or absent
A user is affected if they are running any r15a, r15b, r16a, or r16b version of Foxman-UN or UNEM with the message queueing feature enabled and without proper certificate validation configured.
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 dataImplement proper certificate validation in the message queueing system, including verification of certificate chain, hostname, and revocation status. Ensure TLS/mutual TLS is correctly configured with trusted certificates.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
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 locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-28021 — 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-2024-28021 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