Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2024-54007 is a high-severity Command Injection (CWE-77) vulnerability in Hpe (inferred from references). Its CVSS base score is 7.2 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 27% 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.
CVE-2024-54007 is a set of multiple command injection vulnerabilities (CWE-77) in the web interface of the 501 Wireless Client Bridge. These flaws allow authenticated remote command execution, enabling attackers to run arbitrary commands as a privileged user on the underlying operating system. The vulnerability carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.2 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H), indicating high severity due to its potential for complete system compromise.
Exploitation requires an attacker to possess administrative authentication credentials on the affected host (PR:H), making it targeted at insiders or those who have already obtained valid admin access via other means. Once authenticated over the network (AV:N), an attacker can inject malicious commands through the web interface with low complexity (AC:L) and no user interaction (UI:N). Successful exploitation grants high-impact confidentiality, integrity, and availability effects, potentially allowing full control over the device.
For mitigation details, refer to the HPE security bulletin at https://support.hpe.com/hpesc/public/docDisplay?docId=hpesbnw04763en_us&docLocale=en_US, which provides guidance on patches and remediation for the 501 Wireless Client Bridge.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-52238
Vulnerability Data
Multiple command injection vulnerabilities exist in the web interface of the 501 Wireless Client Bridge which could lead to authenticated remote command execution. Successful exploitation of these vulnerabilities result in the ability of an attacker to execute arbitrary commands as…
more
a privileged user on the underlying operating system. Exploitation requires administrative authentication credentials on the host system.
- 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.