CVE-2024-48176
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 · uneditedLylme Spage v1.9.5 is vulnerable to Incorrect Access Control. There is no limit on the number of login attempts, and the verification code will not be refreshed after a failed login, which allows attackers to blast the username and password and log into the system backend.
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 confidenceLylme Spage v1.9.5 contains an Incorrect Access Control vulnerability allowing unrestricted brute force attacks. The application fails to enforce login attempt limits and does not refresh the verification code after failed login attempts, enabling attackers to systematically guess credentials until successful.
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= 1.9.5CVSS 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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Confirm installed version of Lylme SpageLocate the version number in the application administrative interface, configuration files, or by checking the software metadata (such as the About page, header files, or installer information). Compare against the affected version 1.9.5.Affected if The installed version is exactly 1.9.5 of Lylme Spage.
-
Identify the login endpoint configurationAccess the application's source code or configuration files and locate the authentication/login handling code. Look for the endpoint that processes login form submissions.Affected if The application contains a login form without any rate limiting, throttling, or account lockout mechanisms configured.
-
Verify login attempt rate limitingReview the login authentication code for any implementation of rate limiting, maximum attempt thresholds, or temporary account lockout after failed attempts. Search for conditional logic that blocks or delays repeated failed login attempts.Affected if No rate limiting, maximum attempt caps, or account lockout logic is found in the login processing code.
-
Check verification code refresh behaviorExamine the verification code (captcha) implementation. Submit a failed login attempt and observe whether the verification code refreshes to a new value after each failed attempt.Affected if The verification code remains unchanged after failed login attempts and can be reused for subsequent brute force attempts.
A user is affected if they are running Lylme Spage version 1.9.5 with no rate limiting on the login endpoint and verification codes that do not refresh after failed attempts.
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 rate limiting on login endpoints and ensure the verification code/captcha refreshes after each failed authentication attempt to prevent automated brute force attacks.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,480.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-48176 — 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-2024-48176 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