Cyber Resilience

CVE-2024-39888

Published
09 July 2024
Modified
15 April 2026
CVSS Score v4 8.7
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
EPSS Score 0.0024 16th percentile
Risk Priority 43 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2024-39888 is a high-severity Use of Hard-coded, Security-relevant Constants (CWE-547) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 8.7 (High).

Operationally, ranked at the 16th 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 CM-6 (Configuration Settings) and SA-15 (Development Process, Standards, and Tools) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)

A02:2025 Security Misconfiguration

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

A vulnerability has been identified in Mendix Encryption (All versions >= V10.0.0 < V10.0.2). Affected versions of the module define a specific hard-coded default value for the EncryptionKey constant, which is used in projects where no individual EncryptionKey was specified.…

more

This could allow to an attacker to decrypt any encrypted project data, as the default encryption key can be considered compromised.

CWE(s)
CWE-547

Related Threats

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2025-49151Shared CWE-547
CVE-2024-41885Shared CWE-547
CVE-2025-2079Shared CWE-547
CVE-2024-32021Shared CWE-547
CVE-2026-28256Shared CWE-547
CVE-2025-2081Shared CWE-547
CVE-2025-23253Shared CWE-547
CVE-2023-1712Shared CWE-547
CVE-2025-30206Shared CWE-547

Affected Assets

—
All
inferred from references and description; NVD did not file a CPE for this CVE

Mitigating Controls

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

CM-6 Configuration Settings partial match

Documented configuration settings externalize security-critical values so they are not hard-coded in source.

SA-15 Development Process, Standards, and Tools partial match

Requiring a documented development process and standards can mandate use of symbolic names for constants.

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 mostly match
prevents

Secure SDLC practices directly enforce use of named constants and configurable values for security parameters.

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.8.25 Secure development life cycle partial match
prevents

Secure SDLC processes can catch hard-coded constants during reviews and testing.

A.8.28 Secure coding partial match
prevents

Secure coding standards explicitly prohibit hard-coded security constants.

A.8.32 Change management none match
none

Change management may detect constant changes but does not prevent their initial hard-coding.

A.8.9 Configuration management none match
none

Configuration management can externalize constants but does not directly address coding practice.

References