Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2024-41651 is a high-severity SSRF (CWE-918) vulnerability in Prestashop Prestashop. Its CVSS base score is 8.1 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 33% 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 AC-4 (Information Flow Enforcement) and SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) — 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.
CVE-2024-41651 is an issue in PrestaShop versions 8.1.7 and earlier that permits remote code execution through the module upgrade functionality. It is tracked under CWE-918 and CWE-94 and carries a CVSS 3.1 score of 8.1 reflecting network attack vector, high attack complexity, and impacts on confidentiality, integrity, and availability.
Exploitation would allow an unauthenticated remote attacker to run arbitrary code on the server. Multiple parties dispute the vulnerability description, noting that any successful attack requires the ability to hijack network requests issued by an administrator, a user who is already authorized to alter running code on the server.
The single reference is a GitHub repository that appears to contain proof-of-concept material. No official advisories, patches, or mitigation steps are provided in the available data. The EPSS score stands at 0.3232 with no reported rise from a lower baseline.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-39115
Vulnerability Data
An issue in Prestashop v.8.1.7 and before allows a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code via the module upgrade functionality. NOTE: this is disputed by multiple parties, who report that exploitation requires that an attacker be able to hijack network…
more
requests made by an admin user (who, by design, is allowed to change the code that is running on the server).
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.3.6V1.5.3V5.3.2V10.4.7
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Information flow enforcement can restrict which destinations the server is allowed to contact on behalf of users.
Developer testing and evaluation finds code paths that accept and execute externally influenced strings.
Input validation directly stops untrusted URLs from being accepted and fetched without destination checks.
Least privilege limits the damage an injected code fragment can perform once executed.
Requiring documented secure development standards and tools enforces use of safe code-generation APIs and escaping.
Boundary protection limits the network reach of server-initiated requests even if SSRF occurs.
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 directly include input validation and destination allow-listing that prevent SSRF.
Runtime monitoring of web applications and services can detect anomalous outbound requests indicative of SSRF.
Vulnerability identification processes can discover and record SSRF flaws in web applications.
Network segmentation and egress controls can limit the damage from successful SSRF requests.
PR.DS-10 protects runtime data confidentiality/integrity but has no bearing on neutralizing externally influenced input during code generation, so neither direction shows any preventive effect.
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.
Operational threat data describing SSRF campaigns can be used to tighten outbound-request allow-lists and detection rules before attackers exploit them.
Banning unapproved code samples and unauthenticated web services, combined with secure-coding standards and SAST, prevents the dynamic generation or inclusion of attacker-supplied code.
Controls that restrict unauthorized or malicious code from being introduced via external networks or removable media limit opportunities for an attacker to inject and execute arbitrary code.