CVE-2024-21324
Microsoft Defender For Iot ≤ 24.1.3
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2024-21324 is a high-severity Improper Privilege Management (CWE-269) vulnerability in Microsoft Defender For Iot. Its CVSS base score is 7.2 (High).
Operationally, ranked in the top 17% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; 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.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
Microsoft Defender for IoT is affected by an elevation of privilege vulnerability tracked as CVE-2024-21324. The issue, published in April 2024, carries a CVSS 3.1 score of 7.2 reflecting network attack vector, low complexity, and requirements for high privileges, with high impact across confidentiality, integrity, and availability. It is categorized under CWE-269.
An authenticated attacker with high privileges can exploit the flaw over the network to elevate privileges and achieve full control of the target component. The attack requires no user interaction and does not change scope.
Microsoft publishes remediation guidance for this vulnerability through its Security Response Center at the listed advisory URL; practitioners should review that source for applicable patches and configuration changes. The associated EPSS score has remained flat at 0.0713 with no material increase since disclosure.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-19036
Vulnerability Data
Microsoft Defender for IoT Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
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.
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).
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)
Defining and communicating authorization levels for each role limits the assignment of excessive or unnecessary privileges.
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.
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).
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.