CVE-2024-36558
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 · uneditedForever KidsWatch Call Me KW-50 R36_YDR_A3PW_GM7S_V1.0_2019_07_15_16.19.24_cob_h suffers from Cleartext Transmission of Sensitive Information due to lack of encryption in device-server communication.
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 confidenceThe Forever KidsWatch KW-50 device transmits sensitive information in cleartext (unencrypted) between the device and its backend server, allowing an attacker on the network path to intercept and read potentially sensitive data such as personal information, location data, or authentication credentials.
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
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/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 the device model and firmware versionLocate the model number on the device label or check the device settings menu for the firmware version informationAffected if The device is a Forever Kidswatch KW-50 or any variant transmitting unencrypted data
-
Capture network traffic from the deviceUse a network sniffer or packet capture tool on the network segment where the device operates to observe outbound connections from the deviceAffected if Traffic to the backend server uses HTTP (port 80) or other non-encrypted protocols instead of HTTPS (port 443)
-
Inspect the device backend server URLCheck the device configuration or logs for the configured server endpoint URL - look for http:// versus https:// in the server addressAffected if The configured server URL begins with http:// instead of https://
-
Verify SSL/TLS configuration in device settingsAccess the device administrative or companion app settings and look for security, encryption, or connection settingsAffected if SSL/TLS encryption is disabled or not available in the device settings
The device is affected if it communicates with its backend server over unencrypted HTTP or lacks SSL/TLS encryption options in its configuration.
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 TLS/SSL encryption with proper certificate validation for all device-server communications. If the device firmware cannot support encryption, consider replacing with a secure device model or implementing a secure gateway/proxy solution.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation24.0 h
- Testing12.0 h
- Review / QA8.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $14,656.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-36558 — 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-2024-36558 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