Improper Privilege ManagementWeakness · CWE-269

CVE-2024-48730

MEDIUM · 6.5 CVSS v3.1 Published 2025-07-25
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
71/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
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
The default configuration in ETSI Open-Source MANO (OSM) v.14.x, v.15.x, v.16.x, v.17.x does not impose any restrictions on the authentication attempts performed by the default admin user, allowing a remote attacker to escalate privileges.

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

In ETSI OSM versions 14.x through 17.x, the default configuration lacks any rate limiting, account lockout, or authentication attempt restrictions for the default admin user. This enables remote attackers to perform unlimited brute-force attacks against the admin account, potentially compromising credentials and escalating privileges to full administrative access.

MitigationConfigure authentication attempt limits, account lockout policies, and rate limiting for the default admin user in OSM's authentication settings; also change the default admin credentials to a strong, unique password as part of remediation.

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
None

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

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

  1. Identify OSM version
    Run 'osm --version' or check the container/version metadata in the OSM deployment (e.g., 'kubectl get pods -n osm' or 'docker ps' for OSM containers)
    Affected if The installed version is 14.x, 15.x, 16.x, or 17.x (any version from 14.0 through 17.x)
  2. Confirm default admin user exists
    Check OSM user database or authentication configuration for the presence of the default 'admin' or 'administrator' account (typically found in Keystone configuration or OSM user management tables)
    Affected if The default admin account is present and active in the system
  3. Verify rate limiting is configured for admin authentication
    Examine OSM's authentication configuration files (e.g., keystone.conf, osm-auth-config, or Kubernetes configmaps in the osm namespace) for rate-limiting settings under the authentication or security sections
    Affected if No rate limiting configuration exists or the relevant rate limiting parameters are absent or set to zero/unlimited
  4. Verify account lockout policy exists
    Inspect OSM authentication settings for account lockout or account disabling parameters (check Keystone policies, OSM security config, or authentication backends)
    Affected if No account lockout policy is defined, or lockout after failed attempts is not configured
  5. Verify authentication attempt limits
    Review authentication configuration for max authentication attempts, password retry limits, or similar controls that restrict brute-force login attempts
    Affected if No authentication attempt limits are configured, or the system permits unlimited failed login attempts without enforcement

The environment is affected if running OSM versions 14.x through 17.x and the default admin account is present with no rate limiting, account lockout, or authentication attempt restrictions configured in the OSM authentication settings.

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

Configure authentication attempt limits, account lockout policies, and rate limiting for the default admin user in OSM's authentication settings; also change the default admin credentials to a strong, unique password as part of remediation.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation3.0 h
  • Implementation6.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
14.0 hours of engineering $2,490
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,984.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-48730 — 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-2024-48730 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