CVE-2024-2448
Command Injection in Progress Loadmaster 7.2.49.0 – 7.2.54.9
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/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-2024-2448 is a high-severity OS Command Injection (CWE-78) vulnerability in Progress Loadmaster. Its CVSS base score is 8.4 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique NTDS (T1003.003); ranked in the top 1.0% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; 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.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
An OS command injection vulnerability tracked as CVE-2024-2448 has been identified in LoadMaster. The flaw, categorized under CWE-78, exists in a UI component that accepts and processes shell commands, enabling injection by users who interact with the interface.
An authenticated UI user holding any permission level can exploit the issue over an adjacent network to inject and execute arbitrary operating-system commands. The vulnerability carries a CVSS 3.1 score of 8.4 and yields high impact to confidentiality, integrity, and availability with a changed scope, allowing an attacker to compromise the underlying system.
Public advisories published by Progress and Kemp Technologies address LoadMaster security vulnerabilities CVE-2024-2448 and CVE-2024-2449 and outline mitigation guidance for affected installations. The associated EPSS score has remained steady at 0.4475 with no material rise from a lower baseline.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-27397
Vulnerability Data
An OS command injection vulnerability has been identified in LoadMaster. An authenticated UI user with any permission settings may be able to inject commands into a UI component using a shell command resulting in OS command injection.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.2.5V1.2.8
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover missing or incorrect command sanitization during development.
Input validation directly neutralizes or rejects special characters that would otherwise alter OS command structure.
Least privilege reduces the permissions available to any process that could be subverted by injected commands.
Least functionality restricts available OS commands and interpreters, limiting the blast radius of injection.
Secure engineering principles require proper neutralization of untrusted input before command construction.
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's SDLC practices directly require secure coding and input handling that blocks command-injection defects, yet the single broad outcome leaves many specific neutralization vectors and verification gaps unaddressed.
Routine patching/maintenance can remediate known command-injection CVEs in dependencies (partial forward) but does nothing to stop developers from introducing improper neutralization in custom code (none reverse).
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.