Cyber Resilience

CVE-2024-1654

Papercut Mf ≤ 20.1.10

Published
14 March 2024
Modified
17 June 2026
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v3.1 7.2
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
EPSS Score 0.013 68th percentile
Risk Priority 62 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2024-1654 is a high-severity Permissive List of Allowed Inputs (CWE-183) vulnerability in Papercut Papercut Mf. Its CVSS base score is 7.2 (High).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked in the top 32% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.

The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary

Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.

CVE-2024-1654 is an improper access control issue that permits unauthorized write operations, potentially resulting in remote code execution. The flaw affects PaperCut print management software, as indicated by the vendor's March 2024 security bulletin.

An authenticated administrator who also possesses an internal system identifier and details of another valid user account can exploit the weakness over the network to achieve code execution with high impact to confidentiality, integrity, and availability. The CVSS 7.2 score reflects these requirements for high privileges and specific knowledge, limiting the attack to insiders or compromised admin sessions.

The referenced PaperCut security bulletin addresses the issue and provides mitigation guidance, including available patches and configuration recommendations for affected installations.

EPSS for the CVE rose from a low baseline to a peak of 0.0962 in December 2025 before receding to the current value of 0.0415, indicating a period of increased exploitation interest after disclosure.

OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

This vulnerability potentially allows unauthorized write operations which may lead to remote code execution. An attacker must already have authenticated admin access and knowledge of both an internal system identifier and details of another valid user to exploit this.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques

T1190 Exploit Public-Facing Application Initial Access
Adversaries may attempt to exploit a weakness in an Internet-facing host or system to initially access a network.
Derived from this CVE’s CWE(s) via the direct CWE→ATT&CK cross-walk.

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2024-1884Same product: Apple Macos
CVE-2024-1222Same product: Apple Macos
CVE-2024-1882Same product: Apple Macos
CVE-2024-1883Same product: Apple Macos
CVE-2024-1223Same product: Apple Macos
CVE-2023-39143Same product: Microsoft Windows
CVE-2023-2110Same product: Apple Macos
CVE-2024-0129Same product: Apple Macos
CVE-2023-26020Same product: Apple Macos
CVE-2024-20337Same product: Apple Macos

Affected Assets

papercut
papercut mf
≤ 20.1.10 · 21.0.0 — 21.2.14 · 22.0.0 — 22.1.5
papercut
papercut ng
≤ 20.1.10 · 21.0.0 — 21.2.14 · 22.0.0 — 22.1.5

Mitigating Controls

Control response

Prevent
Stop it (NIST 800-53)

Detect
Catch it (NIST detect / respond)

Harden
Shrink the surface (DISA STIG)

Validate
Prove the fix (OWASP ASVS)
  • V1.5.2
  • V4.4.2

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

Strict validity checks on inputs directly stop overly permissive allow lists from being used as the protection mechanism.

Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI

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

PR.PS-06 mostly match
prevents

Secure SDLC practices directly require rigorous allow-list design and testing that prevents permissive input validation.

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.

finds

Security testing can detect overly broad allow-lists, but does not inherently prevent their creation.

prevents

Application security requirements can mandate strict, minimal allow-lists and input validation rules that prevent overly permissive lists.

prevents

Secure system architecture and engineering principles require explicit, least-privilege input validation designs that directly address permissive allow-lists.

prevents

Secure coding standards enforce rigorous input validation and reject unsafe values, mitigating permissive allow-list weaknesses.

none

Configuration management can enforce validated input rules, yet does not directly address the design flaw of permissive lists.

References