CVE-2024-3729
Dynamiapps Frontend Admin ≤ 3.19.5
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2024-3729 is a critical-severity Failing Open (CWE-636) vulnerability in Dynamiapps Frontend Admin. Its CVSS base score is 9.8 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Service Stop (T1489); ranked in the top 46% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to CP-12 (Safe Mode) and SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-32303
Vulnerability Data
The Frontend Admin by DynamiApps plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to improper missing encryption exception handling on the 'fea_encrypt' function in all versions up to, and including, 3.19.4. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to manipulate the user processing…
more
forms, which can be used to add and edit administrator user for privilege escalation, or to automatically log in users for authentication bypass, or manipulate the post processing form that can be used to inject arbitrary web scripts. This can only be exploited if the 'openssl' php extension is not loaded on the server.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 7 hardening rules · 2 OS baselines
V3.2.1V7.4.1V8.3.3V10.3.4
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
SC-24 directly requires the system to fail to a known state that preserves security properties, structurally stopping fallback to a less-secure mode.
SI-17 mandates explicit fail-safe procedures that activate on indicated failures, preventing the insecure fallback behavior.
CP-12 forces entry into a safe mode on detected conditions, limiting exposure but not covering every failure path.
Developer testing and evaluation explicitly exercises unusual conditions to find missing or incorrect checks.
Input validation directly requires checking for unexpected or malformed conditions before they propagate.
SA-8 requires application of engineering principles that include fail-secure design, reducing the likelihood the weakness is introduced.
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-development practices explicitly include designing error and failure handling to remain in a secure state.
Runtime monitoring of software and environments can detect adverse events triggered by unhandled exceptional conditions.
Least-privilege policy and enforcement directly counters the permissive-access fallback example in the CWE.
Hardened baselines and configuration management reduce the chance that error paths default to insecure settings.
Generating logs of exceptions and errors enables detection of improper handling of unusual conditions.
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 in development and acceptance verifies handling of error and exceptional conditions.
Logging can record unhandled exceptions but does not prevent the weakness itself.
Monitoring may detect symptoms of unhandled conditions but does not eliminate the root weakness.
Secure development life cycle mandates exception handling and input validation that directly prevent missing checks for unusual conditions.
Application security requirements explicitly call for handling of exceptional conditions and error paths.
Secure system architecture and engineering principles require robust error and exception handling mechanisms.
Hardening callouts derived
Configuration rules from DISA STIG baselines that bear on weaknesses of the type cited by this CVE. Each rule is shown with the relationship its mapping actually records, against the CWE it was authored against. Derived via CVE→CWE over `controls_xwalks` (authoritative rows only; rows rated `none` are excluded).
Oracle Linux 8 (2 rules)
- V-248574 YUM must be configured to prevent the installation of patches, service packs, device drivers, or OL 8 system components that have not been digitally signed using a certificate that is recognized and approved by the organization. prevents CWE-754
- V-248575 OL 8 must prevent the installation of software, patches, service packs, device drivers, or operating system components of local packages without verification they have been digitally signed using a certificate that is issued by a Certificate Authority (CA) that is recognized and approved by the organization. prevents CWE-754
Oracle Linux 9 (1 rule)
- V-271452 OL 9 must use a Linux Security Module configured to enforce limits on system services. prevents CWE-754