Cyber Resilience

CVE-2024-5276

SQLi in Fortra Filecatalyst Workflow ≤ 5.1.6

Public PoCHigh EPSSSQLi
Published
25 June 2024
Modified
04 April 2025
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v3.1 9.8
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
EPSS Score 0.90 99.8th percentile
Risk Priority 97 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2024-5276 is a critical-severity Improper Input Validation (CWE-20) vulnerability in Fortra Filecatalyst Workflow. Its CVSS base score is 9.8 (Critical).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked in the top 0.2% 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.

CVE-2024-5276 is a SQL injection vulnerability in Fortra FileCatalyst Workflow that permits an attacker to modify application data, including creation of administrative users and deletion or modification of database records. Data exfiltration is not possible via this flaw. It affects all versions of FileCatalyst Workflow up to and including 5.1.6 Build 135 and is tracked under CWE-20 and CWE-89 with a CVSS 3.1 score of 9.8.

Successful exploitation can be performed unauthenticated when anonymous access is enabled on the Workflow system; otherwise an authenticated user account is required. An attacker reaching the vulnerable component can achieve high-impact changes to the application database without needing user interaction.

Fortra has published security advisories (FI-2024-008) and knowledge-base articles detailing the issue, along with Tenable research (TRA-2024-25) that reference the affected builds and remediation guidance.

The EPSS score for this CVE stands at 0.8742 with no material rise from a lower baseline.

OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

A SQL Injection vulnerability in Fortra FileCatalyst Workflow allows an attacker to modify application data. Likely impacts include creation of administrative users and deletion or modification of data in the application database. Data exfiltration via SQL injection is not possible…

more

using this vulnerability. Successful unauthenticated exploitation requires a Workflow system with anonymous access enabled, otherwise an authenticated user is required. This issue affects all versions of FileCatalyst Workflow from 5.1.6 Build 135 and earlier.

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.
T1036.001 Invalid Code Signature Stealth
Adversaries may attempt to mimic features of valid code signatures to increase the chance of deceiving a user, analyst, or tool.
T1068 Exploitation for Privilege Escalation Privilege Escalation
Adversaries may exploit software vulnerabilities in an attempt to elevate privileges.
T1203 Exploitation for Client Execution Execution
Adversaries may exploit software vulnerabilities in client applications to execute code.
T1210 Exploitation of Remote Services Lateral Movement
Adversaries may exploit remote services to gain unauthorized access to internal systems once inside of a network.
Derived from this CVE’s CWE(s) via the direct CWE→ATT&CK cross-walk.

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2024-6632Same product: Fortra Filecatalyst Workflow
CVE-2024-4609Shared CWE-20, CWE-89
CVE-2023-25651Shared CWE-20, CWE-89
CVE-2024-4547Shared CWE-20, CWE-89
CVE-2024-4548Shared CWE-20, CWE-89
CVE-2023-39357Shared CWE-20, CWE-89
CVE-2024-31212Shared CWE-20, CWE-89
CVE-2023-22491Shared CWE-20, CWE-89
CVE-2024-32655Shared CWE-89
CVE-2024-27304Shared CWE-89

Affected Assets

fortra
filecatalyst workflow
5.1.6 · ≤ 5.1.6

Mitigating Controls

Control response

Prevent
Stop it (NIST 800-53)

Detect
Catch it (NIST detect / respond)

Harden
Shrink the surface (DISA STIG)
  • 6 hardening rules · 3 OS baselines
Validate
Prove the fix (OWASP ASVS)
  • V6.2.5

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

Developer testing and evaluation can discover missing input validation through analysis or test cases.

SI-10 directly requires validity checks on information inputs, structurally preventing improper or missing validation.

Requiring documented development standards and tools can embed input-validation practices into the engineering process.

Secure engineering principles require parameterized queries and input sanitization that structurally eliminate SQLi.

System monitoring can identify attempted SQLi exploitation via anomalous queries after the weakness exists.

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 require and enforce input validation during development.

PR.AT-02 partial match
prevents

Training raises developer awareness of SQLi risks and can reduce introduction likelihood (partial) but removes none of the actual coding flaw's risk by itself since technical neutralization is still required.

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.

finds

Testing against a defined set of requirements and using code review plus vulnerability scanning forces validation of inputs and handling of unanticipated conditions, reducing the chance that malformed data will be accepted.

prevents

Early warnings and shared best-practice information help organizations apply the latest remediation techniques against SQL-injection vulnerabilities.

prevents

Threat-intelligence feeds that surface new SQL-injection campaigns enable rapid updates to query-construction defenses and detection signatures before exploitation occurs.

prevents

Secure-coding guidelines and mandatory security testing (including code scans) compel developers to validate and sanitize inputs at design and implementation time, lowering the incidence of malformed or malicious data reaching downstream components.

prevents

Mandating input controls that include integrity checks and input validation ensures that untrusted data is examined before use, blocking the root cause of many injection and malformed-data weaknesses.

prevents

Security-by-design principles explicitly call for data validation and sanitization at every layer, reducing the chance that malformed or malicious input will be processed without scrutiny.

Hardening callouts derived

Configuration rules from DISA STIG baselines that bear on weaknesses of the type cited by this CVE. Each rule is shown with the relationship its mapping actually records, against the CWE it was authored against. Derived via CVE→CWE over `controls_xwalks` (authoritative rows only; rows rated `none` are excluded).

RHEL 8 (1 rule)
  • V-230265 RHEL 8 must prevent the installation of software, patches, service packs, device drivers, or operating system components of local packages without verification they have been digitally signed using a certificate that is issued by a Certificate Authority (CA) that is recognized and approved by the organization. prevents CWE-20

References