Security Resilience

CVE-2024-11721

Dynamiapps Frontend Admin ≤ 3.25.1

Published
14 December 2024
Modified
05 June 2025
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v3.1 8.1
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
EPSS Score 0.0056 45th percentile
Risk Priority 60 floored blend · peak EPSS

CVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.

Summary

CVE-2024-11721 is a high-severity Improper Privilege Management (CWE-269) vulnerability in Dynamiapps Frontend Admin. Its CVSS base score is 8.1 (High).

Operationally, ranked at the 45th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.

The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to AC-2 (Account Management) and AC-24 (Access Control Decisions) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

The Frontend Admin by DynamiApps plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to privilege escalation in all versions up to, and including, 3.24.5. This is due to insufficient controls on the user role select field when utilizing the 'Role' field in a…

more

form. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to create new administrative user accounts, even when the administrative user role has not been provided as an option to the user, granted that unauthenticated users have been provided access to the form.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2024-3729Same product: Dynamiapps Frontend Admin
CVE-2025-26987Same product: Dynamiapps Frontend Admin
CVE-2024-11722Same product: Dynamiapps Frontend Admin
CVE-2023-51411Same product: Dynamiapps Frontend Admin
CVE-2024-11720Same product: Dynamiapps Frontend Admin
CVE-2026-20044Shared CWE-269
CVE-2026-16298Shared CWE-269
CVE-2023-43664Shared CWE-269
CVE-2024-0353Shared CWE-269
CVE-2023-5739Shared CWE-269

Affected Assets

dynamiapps
frontend admin
≤ 3.25.1

Mitigating Controls

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

Account management directly governs assignment and tracking of privileges so proper implementation stops the weakness from being introduced.

Requiring explicit access-control decisions ensures privileges are evaluated rather than assumed or omitted.

Access enforcement applies the correct privilege checks at every request, structurally preventing unintended spheres of control.

Separation of duties constrains how privileges may be assigned, reducing the chance of overly broad actor control.

Least privilege is the direct countermeasure to improper privilege management; implementing it eliminates the root cause.

Binding security attributes to subjects/objects supplies the mechanism needed to track and enforce privileges correctly.

Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI

Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.

blocks

A.5.15 directly mandates determining access requirements, defining/enforcing topic-specific access control policy, assigning rights/restrictions by entity/role, consistency with classification, need-to-know, privileged access restrictions, segregation, formal authorization, and dynamic rules — which stops most improper privilege management from being exploitable; bounded remainder is flawed implementation of those rules (e.g. incorrect mapping or enforcement bugs).

blocks

A.5.18 directly governs the provisioning, review, modification and timely revocation of access rights (including for role changes, termination and privilege levels), which stops most improper privilege spheres from being exploitable even if the assignment flaw exists; the bounded remainder is flaws in the underlying enforcement mechanism itself (e.g. AC-3/A.8.3)

blocks

Defining and communicating authorization levels for each role limits the assignment of excessive or unnecessary privileges.

A.8.15 Logging partial match
finds

Logging every use of privileges and protecting those records makes it harder for an attacker who has obtained elevated rights to operate without leaving evidence.

blocks

A.8.2 directly controls the identification, allocation, review, expiry, temporary use, and separation of privileged rights per policy, which prevents most improper privilege management (CWE-269) by design; the bounded remainder is flawed tracking/checking logic inside the product's own enforcement code (the AC-3 slice of 269).

blocks

A.8.27 mandates security-by-design principles including least privilege, default deny, fail securely, defence in depth, security architecture integration, hardening, and zero-trust verification of every request; these directly stop most improper privilege spheres from being exploitable even if the assignment flaw remains, with a bounded remainder (e.g. certain legacy or safety-overridden controls).

Hardening callouts derived

DISA STIG baselines are authored against specific weaknesses. Where this CVE cites a broad weakness class, the mapping is not asserted at that abstraction (owner ruling, 2026-09-25: grade only at Base and below), so no rule is shown here rather than a rule shown against the wrong grain.

References