Security Resilience

CVE-2024-50651

Access Control in Geeeeeeeek Java Shop 1.0

Public PoCAccess Control
Published
15 November 2024
Modified
27 November 2024
CVSS Score v3.1 6.5
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
EPSS Score 0.0050 41th percentile
Risk Priority 50 floored blend · peak EPSS

CVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.

Summary

CVE-2024-50651 is a medium-severity Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key (CWE-639) vulnerability in Geeeeeeeek Java Shop. Its CVSS base score is 6.5 (Medium).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 41th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); 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-24 (Access Control Decisions) and AC-3 (Access Enforcement) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

java_shop 1.0 is vulnerable to Incorrect Access Control, which allows attackers to obtain sensitive information of users with different IDs by modifying the ID parameter.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques

T1190 Exploit Public-Facing Application Initial Access
Adversaries may attempt to exploit a weakness in an Internet-facing host or system to initially access a network.
Derived from this CVE’s CWE(s) via the direct CWE→ATT&CK cross-walk.

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2024-50652Same product: Geeeeeeeek Java Shop
CVE-2023-38048Shared CWE-639
CVE-2023-3288Shared CWE-639
CVE-2026-49141Shared CWE-639
CVE-2026-93399Shared CWE-639
CVE-2025-6038Shared CWE-639
CVE-2026-58447Shared CWE-639
CVE-2026-63763Shared CWE-639
CVE-2024-8988Shared CWE-639
CVE-2025-14881Shared CWE-639

Affected Assets

geeeeeeeek
java shop
1.0

Mitigating Controls

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

Enforcing approved authorizations on every access request structurally stops a user-controlled key from reaching another user's data.

Requiring explicit access-control decisions on each request blocks unauthorized key-driven access.

Least-privilege restrictions limit the scope of data reachable even if a key check is bypassed.

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.AA-05 full match
blocks

Enforcing authorization policy and least privilege directly blocks user-controlled key tampering that bypasses access checks.

PR.IR-01 mostly match
blocks

Logical access controls prevent unauthorized data access that results from missing authorization checks on object references.

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.

blocks

A.5.15 directly requires defining and implementing access control rules (including authorization, need-to-know, role-based restrictions, formal requests, and consistency with classification) that stop one user from reaching another's data via a tampered key; the bounded remainder is dynamic or application-specific authorization logic (cross-referenced to 8.26) that may still allow bypass if those downstream rules are flawed.

finds

Security testing can detect missing authorization checks but does not prevent the weakness in production.

blocks

Information access restriction explicitly enforces that users may only retrieve data they are authorized to see, directly addressing user-controlled key bypass.

blocks

Managing access rights includes ensuring users can only access their own records and not bypass authorization by altering identifiers.

prevents

Secure coding practices reduce the likelihood of missing authorization checks but do not guarantee their presence at runtime.

References