CVE-2024-48125
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 · uneditedAn issue in the AsDB service of HI-SCAN 6040i Hitrax HX-03-19-I allows attackers to enumerate user credentials via crafted GIOP protocol requests.
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 confidenceThe AsDB service in HI-SCAN 6040i Hitrax HX-03-19-I security scanner lacks proper authentication or input validation on GIOP (General Inter-ORB Protocol) requests, allowing remote unauthenticated attackers to enumerate valid user credentials by sending specially crafted protocol messages.
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.
-
Confirm scanner modelIdentify if the system is a HI-SCAN 6040i or Hitrax HX-03-19-I security scanner by checking system inventory, network scans for known scanner service banners, or physical device identificationAffected if The system is a HI-SCAN 6040i or Hitrax HX-03-19-I scanner model
-
Detect GIOP service exposureScan network for open ports commonly used by GIOP services (such as 7070, 10101) or perform a port scan on the scanner host and check for services responding to GIOP protocol probesAffected if GIOP ports are open and accessible from an untrusted network or the internet
-
Verify AsDB service accessibilityCheck if the AsDB service port on the scanner is reachable from external sources by attempting a network connection to the scanner on typical service ports or reviewing firewall rulesAffected if AsDB service port is accessible without authentication from untrusted networks
-
Check authentication configurationReview service configuration files or settings for the AsDB service to determine if authentication is disabled, optional, or not enforced for GIOP protocol requestsAffected if Authentication is disabled or not required for AsDB/GIOP access
A user is affected if they operate a HI-SCAN 6040i or Hitrax HX-03-19-I scanner where the GIOP/AsDB service is network-accessible without authentication.
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 dataRestrict GIOP service exposure to trusted networks, implement authentication requirements for AsDB service queries, and apply vendor-provided firmware/security updates if available.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing12.0 h
- Review / QA6.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $11,776.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-48125 — 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-2024-48125 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