CVE-2024-35081
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 · uneditedLuckyFrameWeb v3.5.2 was discovered to contain an arbitrary file deletion vulnerability via the fileName parameter in the fileDownload method.
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 confidenceLuckyFrameWeb v3.5.2 contains an arbitrary file deletion vulnerability in the fileDownload method where the fileName parameter is not properly validated, allowing unauthenticated attackers to delete arbitrary files on the server file system.
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= 3.5.2CVSS 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
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/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 LuckyFrameWeb installation and versionCheck your installed LuckyFrameWeb version by examining the application manifest, build file (pom.xml, build.gradle), or the WAR file name and metadata. Look for version 3.5.2 specifically.Affected if The installed version is exactly 3.5.2
-
Locate the web application deploymentFind where LuckyFrameWeb is deployed: check application directories, web server document roots, or container deployment folders. Look for the fileDownload functionality in the deployed codebase.Affected if LuckyFrameWeb version 3.5.2 is deployed and running
-
Verify the fileDownload endpoint exposureInspect the application configuration or access logs to determine if the fileDownload endpoint (typically exposed via /api/fileDownload or similar URL pattern) is accessible without authentication.Affected if The fileDownload endpoint is exposed without requiring authentication
-
Check for path traversal protectionsExamine the source code or configuration of the fileDownload method to verify whether input validation exists on the fileName parameter. Look for validation logic that restricts file paths.Affected if The fileName parameter lacks proper validation or path traversal protection
You are affected if LuckyFrameWeb version 3.5.2 is deployed and the fileDownload endpoint is accessible without authentication, allowing unrestricted file deletion via the fileName parameter.
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 strict input validation on the fileName parameter to prevent path traversal attacks, enforce proper authorization checks to ensure users can only delete permitted files, and consider whitelist-based file access controls.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-35081 — 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-2024-35081 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