CVE-2024-6670
SQLi in Progress Whatsup Gold ≤ 24.0
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2024-6670 is a critical-severity SQL Injection (CWE-89) vulnerability in Progress Whatsup Gold. 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 0.1% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; CISA has added it to the Known Exploited Vulnerabilities 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-2024-6670 is a SQL injection vulnerability, tracked under CWE-89, that affects WhatsUp Gold versions released before 2024.0.0. The flaw resides in the network monitoring application and carries a CVSS 3.1 base score of 9.8, reflecting network-accessible attack vectors that require no authentication or user interaction.
An unauthenticated remote attacker can exploit the injection to retrieve encrypted user passwords, resulting in high impact to confidentiality, integrity, and availability. Because the vulnerability can be reached directly over the network, an adversary needs only the ability to send crafted requests to a vulnerable instance.
The vendor Progress has published a security bulletin directing customers to upgrade to WhatsUp Gold 2024.0.0 or later, and the CVE appears in CISA’s Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog, confirming that mitigation through patching is required for affected deployments.
The associated EPSS score has reached a peak of 0.9679 with a current value of 0.9447, indicating sustained exploitation interest following disclosure.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-48017
Vulnerability Data
In WhatsUp Gold versions released before 2024.0.0, a SQL Injection vulnerability allows an unauthenticated attacker to retrieve the users encrypted password.
- CWE(s)
- KEV Date Added
- 16 September 2024
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V6.2.5
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover SQLi flaws before deployment but does not stop their introduction.
Input validation directly stops untrusted data from reaching SQL query construction without neutralization.
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.
Secure SDLC practices directly target injection flaws during coding and review so largely prevent CWE-89 introduction, yet the single broad outcome leaves residual risk from incomplete neutralization techniques or missed edge cases.
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.
The same secure-coding and static-analysis activities surface missing neutralization of SQL metacharacters before the system is accepted.
Early warnings and shared best-practice information help organizations apply the latest remediation techniques against SQL-injection vulnerabilities.
Threat-intelligence feeds that surface new SQL-injection campaigns enable rapid updates to query-construction defenses and detection signatures before exploitation occurs.
Secure-coding rules and security testing phases mandate the use of parameterized queries or equivalent escaping, preventing the construction of dynamic SQL statements from untrusted input.
Language-specific secure coding rules, peer review and SAST together prevent the construction of SQL statements from untrusted data without proper parameterization or escaping.