CVE-2024-3274
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** UNSUPPORTED WHEN ASSIGNED ** A vulnerability has been found in D-Link DNS-320L, DNS-320LW and DNS-327L up to 20240403 and classified as problematic. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the file /cgi-bin/info.cgi of the component HTTP GET Request Handler. The manipulation leads to information disclosure. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The identifier VDB-259285 was assigned to this vulnerability. NOTE: This vulnerability only affects products that are no longer supported by the maintainer. NOTE: Vendor was contacted early and confirmed immediately that the product is end-of-life. It should be retired and replaced.
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 confidenceInformation disclosure vulnerability in D-Link DNS-320L, DNS-320LW, and DNS-327L NAS devices affecting the /cgi-bin/info.cgi component. Remote attackers can obtain sensitive information via crafted HTTP GET requests. The vulnerability has a public exploit (VDB-259285).
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
- Low
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify device modelAccess the device admin interface or check the device label/metadata to confirm the exact model number is DNS-320L, DNS-320LW, or DNS-327LAffected if The model is one of DNS-320L, DNS-320LW, or DNS-327L
-
Confirm device is operationalPing the device IP address or attempt HTTP/HTTPS access to verify the device is still powered on and connected to the networkAffected if The device responds to network requests and is reachable
-
Verify vulnerable CGI endpoint existsSend an HTTP GET request to http://[device-ip]/cgi-bin/info.cgi and observe the responseAffected if The endpoint returns any output (including error messages), indicating the CGI script is present and accessible
-
Test for information disclosureSend a crafted HTTP GET request to /cgi-bin/info.cgi (using the exploit pattern from VDB-259285 if available) and check if sensitive system information is returnedAffected if The response contains sensitive information such as system configuration, credentials, or internal network details that should not be publicly accessible
-
Check firmware version if accessibleIf device admin interface is accessible, navigate to the firmware/version information page to identify the installed firmware versionAffected if The firmware version matches the affected range for DNS-320L, DNS-320LW, or DNS-327L (compare against any known affected versions)
The environment is affected if a D-Link DNS-320L, DNS-320LW, or DNS-327L device is operational on the network with the /cgi-bin/info.cgi endpoint accessible and responding with sensitive information.
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.
dbcve · scopedDevice retirement and replacement is recommended as the vendor has confirmed end-of-life status with no patches forthcoming. If immediate retirement is not possible, implement strict network access controls and place affected devices behind firewalls to limit exposure.
- These are end-of-life (EOL) products. D-Link has confirmed these products are no longer supported and should be retired and replaced.
- There is no patch or firmware update available for this vulnerability.
- Replace affected devices (D-Link DNS-320L, DNS-320LW, DNS-327L) with currently supported hardware.
- If immediate replacement is not possible, consider network isolation to limit exposure to remote attackers.
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $4,880.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-3274 — 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-2024-3274 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