CVE-2024-28022
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 UNEM server / APIGateway that if exploited allows a malicious user to perform an arbitrary number of authentication attempts using different passwords, and eventually gain access to other components in the same security realm using the targeted account.
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 confidenceThis is a brute force vulnerability in the UNEM server/APIGateway where authentication endpoints lack proper rate limiting or account lockout mechanisms. An attacker can make unlimited authentication attempts with different passwords until they successfully compromise targeted user accounts and gain access to other components within the same security realm.
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= r15a= r15b= r16a= r16b= 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
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L
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 the installed version of Foxman Un or UnemLocate the product version in the system documentation, about page, or by running the product's version command. Common locations include the installation directory, admin console, or using a version query tool specific to the product.Affected if The installed version is r15a, r15b, r16a, or r16b, which are the affected versions listed for both Foxman Un and Unem products.
-
Verify if authentication endpoints are network accessibleIdentify the authentication endpoints (typically under /api/auth, /login, or similar paths in the APIGateway). Confirm these endpoints are reachable from networks where attackers could launch brute force attempts.Affected if Authentication endpoints are exposed on the network without being restricted by firewall rules or network segmentation.
-
Inspect rate limiting configuration on authentication endpointsReview the APIGateway or UNEM server configuration files for rate limiting settings on authentication paths. Look for configurations related to request throttling, rate limits, or attempt restrictions on auth endpoints.Affected if No rate limiting is configured, or rate limiting is disabled on authentication endpoints, allowing unlimited requests.
-
Check account lockout policy configurationExamine the user account security policies in the UNEM server settings. Look for parameters controlling failed login attempts before account lockout, lockout duration, and whether such policies are enforced.Affected if Account lockout policies are not enabled, or the threshold for locking accounts after failed attempts is not set or set to an excessively high value.
-
Test for brute force protection on login endpointsSend multiple authentication requests with incorrect credentials to the login endpoint from a single source. Observe if any throttling, CAPTCHA, temporary blocking, or account lockout occurs after repeated failed attempts.Affected if No protection mechanism triggers after multiple failed login attempts; the endpoint continues to accept authentication requests without restriction.
Your environment is affected if you are running version r15a, r15b, r16a, or r16b of Foxman Un or Unem and authentication endpoints lack rate limiting and account lockout mechanisms, allowing unlimited login 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 dataImplement rate limiting on authentication endpoints, enforce account lockout policies after failed attempts, and consider adding multi-factor authentication to prevent brute force credential attacks.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-28022 — 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-2024-28022 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