Code InjectionWeakness · CWE-94

CVE-2024-36074

HIGH · 7.2 CVSS v3.1 Published 2024-06-27
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
78/100
Remediation priority · High
Remotely reachable 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
Netwrix CoSoSys Endpoint Protector through 5.9.3 and CoSoSys Unify through 7.0.6 contain a remote code execution vulnerability in the Endpoint Protector and Unify agent in the way that the EasyLock dependency is acquired from the server. An attacker with administrative access to the Endpoint Protector or Unify server can cause a client to acquire and execute a malicious file resulting in remote code execution.

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 confidence

This is a supply-chain vulnerability in Endpoint Protector and Unify agents where the EasyLock dependency is fetched from the server without adequate integrity verification. An attacker with administrative access to the server can replace the legitimate dependency with a malicious file, which client agents will then download and execute, achieving remote code execution on all connected clients.

MitigationRestrict administrative access to the Endpoint Protector/Unify server using strong authentication and RBAC; implement cryptographic verification (e.g., signed packages) for all client-side dependencies; apply vendor patches when available.

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
High
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/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 installed Endpoint Protector or Unify agent
    Check installed software listings or service status for 'Endpoint Protector' or 'Unify' agent processes
    Affected if Either Endpoint Protector or Unify agent is installed on the system
  2. Determine if EasyLock dependency is in use
    Inspect client configuration files or logs for references to EasyLock, or examine the agent's loaded modules and dependencies
    Affected if EasyLock is loaded or configured as a dependency for the agent
  3. Verify server-side administrative access controls
    Review server access logs, user accounts, and RBAC policies for the Endpoint Protector/Unify server to confirm who has administrative privileges
    Affected if Multiple accounts have administrative access or weak authentication is in place on the server
  4. Inspect dependency integrity verification
    Check client and server configuration for cryptographic verification settings (such as signature validation, checksum verification, or signed package policies) for downloaded dependencies
    Affected if No integrity verification or signature validation is configured for EasyLock or other client-side dependencies
  5. Review server dependency files
    Examine the server's dependency distribution directory for EasyLock and verify file hashes or signatures against known-good values if available
    Affected if Dependency files lack verifiable integrity checks or originate from an untrusted source

If Endpoint Protector or Unify agent with EasyLock is installed and dependencies are fetched without cryptographic integrity verification, the environment is vulnerable to supply-chain compromise via malicious server-side dependency replacement.

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 administrative access to the Endpoint Protector/Unify server using strong authentication and RBAC; implement cryptographic verification (e.g., signed packages) for all client-side dependencies; apply vendor patches when available.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation6.0 h
  • Implementation20.0 h
  • Testing12.0 h
  • Review / QA6.0 h
44.0 hours of engineering $7,680
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $12,288.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-36074 — 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-2024-36074 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