Information ExposureWeakness · CWE-200

CVE-2024-35343

CRITICAL · 9.8 CVSS v3.1 Published 2024-05-28
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
100/100
Remediation priority · Urgent
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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
Certain Anpviz products allow unauthenticated users to download arbitrary files from the device's filesystem via a HTTP GET request to the /playback/ URI. This affects IPC-D250, IPC-D260, IPC-B850, IPC-D850, IPC-D350, IPC-D3150, IPC-D4250, IPC-D380, IPC-D880, IPC-D280, IPC-D3180, MC800N, YM500L, YM800N_N2, YMF50B, YM800SV2, YM500L8, and YM200E10 (IP Cameras) firmware v3.2.2.2 and lower and possibly more vendors/models of IP camera.

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 · high confidence

The vulnerability is a path traversal issue in the /playback/ URI of Anpviz IP cameras (multiple models listed) running firmware v3.2.2.2 and lower. An unauthenticated attacker can send a specially crafted HTTP GET request to download arbitrary files from the device's filesystem, potentially exposing sensitive configuration data, credentials, or firmware components.

MitigationRestrict network access to affected IP cameras (e.g., place behind a firewall/VLAN) and apply vendor firmware updates when available. If no update exists, consider network segmentation and monitoring for attempts to exploit this vulnerability.

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
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify the device as an Anpnviz IP camera
    Check the device model via its web interface, SNMP, or network discovery. Look for Anpnviz branding or check the HTTP server banner if available.
    Affected if The device is an Anpnviz IP camera from any of the affected model families.
  2. Determine the installed firmware version
    Log into the camera's web interface and navigate to System > Firmware/Version, or query the device's API endpoint that exposes version information. Compare the firmware version to v3.2.2.2.
    Affected if The firmware version is v3.2.2.2 or lower.
  3. Verify the /playback/ endpoint is accessible without authentication
    Send an HTTP GET request to http://<device_ip>/playback/ (or a similar path traversal probe such as /playback/..%2F..%2Fetc/passwd) using a tool like curl. Observe if the device responds or returns file content.
    Affected if The /playback/ endpoint responds without requiring authentication credentials.
  4. Assess network exposure of the camera
    Check if the device is directly accessible from untrusted networks (e.g., internet-facing, guest VLANs) by reviewing firewall rules, VLAN assignments, and access control lists.
    Affected if The camera's HTTP service is reachable from networks where untrusted users could send malicious requests.

A user is affected if they have an Anpnviz IP camera running firmware v3.2.2.2 or lower with the /playback/ endpoint exposed to untrusted network segments.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Restrict network access to affected IP cameras (e.g., place behind a firewall/VLAN) and apply vendor firmware updates when available. If no update exists, consider network segmentation and monitoring for attempts to exploit this vulnerability.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation8.0 h
  • Implementation16.0 h
  • Testing4.0 h
  • Review / QA4.0 h
32.0 hours of engineering $5,800
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $9,280.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-35343 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2024-35343 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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