Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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:XSummary
CVE-2024-50388 is a critical-severity Command Injection (CWE-77) vulnerability in Qnap Hybrid Backup Sync. Its CVSS base score is 9.5 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 18% 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-2024-50388 affects QNAP HBS 3 Hybrid Backup Sync. The flaw, assigned CWE-77 and CWE-78, permits unauthenticated remote command execution and carries a CVSS 4.0 score of 9.5 reflecting network attack vector, low complexity, and high impact across confidentiality, integrity, and availability.
Remote attackers can exploit the issue without authentication or user interaction to run arbitrary operating-system commands on the affected backup appliance. Successful exploitation grants full control over the target system, enabling data exfiltration, persistence, or further lateral movement within the network.
The vendor advisory QSA-24-41 states that the vulnerability is resolved in HBS 3 Hybrid Backup Sync version 25.1.1.673 and later; organizations should apply the update promptly. The associated EPSS score remains flat at 0.0793 with no material increase since disclosure.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-45184
Vulnerability Data
An OS command injection vulnerability has been reported to affect HBS 3 Hybrid Backup Sync. If exploited, the vulnerability could allow remote attackers to execute commands. We have already fixed the vulnerability in the following version: HBS 3 Hybrid Backup…
more
Sync 25.1.1.673 and later
- 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.
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 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.
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.
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.