CVE-2024-20431
Cisco Secure Firewall Threat Defense 7.0.0 … 7.4.1.1
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:NSummary
CVE-2024-20431 is a medium-severity Improper Handling of Values (CWE-229) vulnerability in Cisco Secure Firewall Threat Defense. Its CVSS base score is 5.8 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 33th 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 SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-18146
Vulnerability Data
A vulnerability in the geolocation access control feature of Cisco Firepower Threat Defense (FTD) Software could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to bypass an access control policy. This vulnerability is due to improper assignment of geolocation data. An attacker could…
more
exploit this vulnerability by sending traffic through an affected device. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to bypass a geolocation-based access control policy and successfully send traffic to a protected device.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Input validation directly enforces correct handling of parameter counts and defined values before processing occurs.
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.
Secure SDLC practices directly require proper input validation and parameter handling to prevent this weakness.
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.
Security testing can detect missing-value flaws but does not itself implement the handling logic.
Secure development lifecycle includes input validation and parameter handling requirements that reduce missing-value errors.
Application security requirements explicitly call for validation of all input parameters and fields.
Secure architecture principles encourage robust input handling but do not directly specify value-count checks.
Secure coding standards mandate proper handling of missing or undefined parameters, directly addressing this weakness.