CVE-2024-4894
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 · uneditedITPison OMICARD EDM fails to properly filter specific URL parameter, allowing unauthenticated remote attackers to modify the parameters and conduct Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) attacks. This vulnerability enables attackers to probe internal network information.
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 confidenceITPison OMICARD EDM fails to properly filter specific URL parameters, allowing unauthenticated remote attackers to manipulate these parameters and induce the server to make arbitrary requests to internal or external resources, enabling Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) attacks to probe internal network information.
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
- Low
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/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 ITPison OMICARD EDM is presentLocate the OMICARD EDM installation directory or identify the running service process. Check for processes named 'OMICARD' or 'EDM' in running process lists, or look for the application in standard installation paths.Affected if The product is installed and running on the system
-
Identify the installed versionCheck the application's about page, version file, or installation manifest within the OMICARD EDM directory. Compare the found version against any known affected version ranges.Affected if The installed version cannot be determined or matches known affected versions
-
Determine web interface accessibilityReview network configuration, firewall rules, and web server bindings to check if the OMICARD EDM web interface is exposed to network segments outside the trusted internal network.Affected if The web interface is accessible from untrusted or external network segments
-
Inspect URL parameter validation configurationExamine application configuration files, web.xml, or any custom filter configurations for URL handling. Look for settings related to request validation, URL allowlisting, or input filtering on URL parameters.Affected if No URL allowlist or strict input validation is configured for URL parameters
-
Review access logs for SSRF attemptsAnalyze web server and application logs for requests containing suspicious URL parameters, especially those with internal IP addresses (127.0.0.1, 10.x.x.x, 192.168.x.x), localhost, or internal hostnames in query string parameters.Affected if Logs show requests manipulating URL parameters to access internal resources
The environment is affected if ITPison OMICARD EDM is running with its web interface accessible and URL parameters lack proper validation or allowlist filtering.
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 strict input validation and allowlist-based filtering on URL parameters to restrict requests to permitted domains/URLs only; additionally, enforce network segmentation and restrict outbound connections from the application server to minimize SSRF impact.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-4894 — 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-2024-4894 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