Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2024-39914 is a critical-severity Command Injection (CWE-77) vulnerability in Fogproject Fogproject. Its CVSS base score is 9.8 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 2% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
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.
FOG, a cloning/imaging/rescue suite and inventory management system, contains a command injection vulnerability in versions prior to 1.5.10.34. The flaw is located in packages/web/lib/fog/reportmaker.class.php and is reachable through the filename parameter supplied to the /fog/management/export.php endpoint, corresponding to CWE-77.
An unauthenticated remote attacker can supply a crafted filename value to execute arbitrary operating-system commands on the server. With a CVSS score of 9.8, successful exploitation grants complete control over confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the affected system.
The issue is resolved in release 1.5.10.34, as documented in the project’s GitHub security advisory GHSA-7h44-6vq6-cq8j and the associated commit that patches reportmaker.class.php. The current EPSS score of 0.9356 indicates sustained high exploitation probability.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-38296
Vulnerability Data
FOG is a cloning/imaging/rescue suite/inventory management system. Prior to 1.5.10.34, packages/web/lib/fog/reportmaker.class.php in FOG was affected by a command injection via the filename parameter to /fog/management/export.php. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.5.10.34.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.2.3V1.2.5V1.2.8V1.2.9
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover command-construction flaws before deployment.
Input validation directly stops construction of commands from untrusted data containing special elements.
Secure engineering principles include proper neutralization and safe command construction practices.
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 SDLC practices directly require input validation and neutralization that prevent command injection.
Runtime monitoring of software and data can detect anomalous command execution resulting from injection.
Identifying recorded vulnerabilities enables remediation of command-injection flaws before exploitation.
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.
Secure coding standards require proper escaping and parameterization of commands, directly eliminating CWE-77.
Security testing in development catches command-injection vulnerabilities before release.
Secure development life cycle mandates input validation and command construction practices that directly prevent command injection.
Application security requirements explicitly call for controls against injection flaws including command injection.
Secure architecture principles reduce the attack surface but do not prescribe the specific neutralization techniques needed.
Environment separation limits the blast radius of an exploited command injection but does not prevent the flaw itself.