Security Resilience

CVE-2024-23335

Mybb ≤ 1.8.38

Published
01 May 2024
Modified
30 June 2025
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v3.1 4.7
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
EPSS Score 0.0056 45th percentile
Risk Priority 38 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-2024-23335 is a medium-severity Improper Input Validation (CWE-20) vulnerability in Mybb Mybb. Its CVSS base score is 4.7 (Medium).

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 SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

MyBB is a free and open source forum software. The backup management module of the Admin CP may accept `.htaccess` as the name of the backup file to be deleted, which may expose the stored backup files over HTTP on…

more

Apache servers. MyBB 1.8.38 resolves this issue. Users are advised to upgrade. There are no known workarounds for this vulnerability

CWE(s)

Related Threats

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2023-53977Same product: Mybb Mybb
CVE-2024-23336Same product: Mybb Mybb
CVE-2025-48941Same product: Mybb Mybb
CVE-2025-48940Same product: Mybb Mybb
CVE-2023-46251Same product: Mybb Mybb
CVE-2025-29458Same product: Mybb Mybb
CVE-2023-45556Same product: Mybb Mybb
CVE-2025-29459Same product: Mybb Mybb
CVE-2023-41362Same product: Mybb Mybb
CVE-2025-29457Same product: Mybb Mybb

Affected Assets

mybb
mybb
≤ 1.8.38

Mitigating Controls

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

Developer testing and evaluation can discover missing input validation through analysis or test cases.

SI-10 directly requires validity checks on information inputs, structurally preventing improper or missing validation.

Requiring documented development standards and tools can embed input-validation practices into the engineering process.

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.8.25 mandates security requirements, secure coding guidelines, checkpoints, testing (incl. code scans) and developer training in the SDLC, which reaches a slice of input validation defects but leaves the majority (incomplete enforcement, second-order inputs, parser differentials, post-validation canonicalization) unaddressed as in the SA-3 and A.8.28 anchors.

blocks

Mandating input controls that include integrity checks and input validation ensures that untrusted data is examined before use, blocking the root cause of many injection and malformed-data weaknesses.

blocks

Security-by-design principles explicitly call for data validation and sanitization at every layer, reducing the chance that malformed or malicious input will be processed without scrutiny.

prevents

Requiring language-specific secure coding standards, peer review, SAST and documented mitigation of common programming errors forces validation of all inputs before they are trusted.

finds

Testing against a defined set of requirements and using code review plus vulnerability scanning forces validation of inputs and handling of unanticipated conditions, reducing the chance that malformed data will be accepted.

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.

  • No fine-grained STIG row for CWE-20, a class-level weakness, and none of its children carries one either.

References