CVE-2024-51240
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 luci-mod-rpc package in OpenWRT Luci LTS allows for privilege escalation from an admin account to root via the JSON-RPC-API, which is exposed by the luci-mod-rpc package
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 luci-mod-rpc package in OpenWRT Luci LTS contains a privilege escalation vulnerability in its JSON-RPC-API implementation. An authenticated admin user can exploit the API to gain root-level privileges, likely by bypassing authorization checks in RPC method execution.
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
- Adjacent
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/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.
-
Verify luci-mod-rpc package installationRun 'opkg list-installed | grep luci-mod-rpc' or check /usr/lib/lua/luci/model/rpc.lua existsAffected if The package is installed and the RPC module files are present on the system
-
Confirm JSON-RPC API is exposedCheck if the RPC service listens on common ports (80, 443, or 8080) by reviewing firewall config with 'iptables -L -n' or 'uci show firewall' and looking for luci RPC interface rulesAffected if The HTTP/HTTPS service on the router is accessible and the luci-mod-rpc endpoint responds to requests
-
Identify admin user accountsRun 'uci show ucitrack' or check /etc/config/ucitrack for luci config, and verify admin users exist via 'cat /etc/passwd' or by checking /etc/config/rpcd for user configurationsAffected if At least one admin-level user account is configured with access to LuCI
-
Test RPC method execution privilege levelIf authenticated to the RPC API, invoke a privileged method (such as system command execution via RPC) and verify whether it runs as root rather than restricted userAffected if An authenticated admin user can execute RPC methods that perform actions as the root user rather than being restricted to admin-level privileges
The environment is affected if luci-mod-rpc is installed, the HTTP interface is accessible, and an admin user exists, since the combination allows authenticated privilege escalation to root.
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 dataDisable the luci-mod-rpc package if JSON-RPC-API access is not required, or restrict access to trusted IP addresses via firewall rules until an official patch is available.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
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 locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-51240 — 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-2024-51240 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