Cyber Resilience

CVE-2024-9131

Arista Ng Firewall ≤ 17.1.1

Published
10 January 2025
Modified
29 September 2025
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v3.1 7.2
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
EPSS Score 0.014 70th percentile
Risk Priority 56 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2024-9131 is a high-severity Argument Injection (CWE-88) vulnerability in Arista Ng Firewall. 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 30% 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-2024-9131 is a command injection vulnerability (CWE-88) that affects Arista products. Published on 2025-01-10, it 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). The flaw enables a user with administrator privileges to perform command injection.

An attacker requires administrator privileges (PR:H) to exploit this vulnerability over the network (AV:N) with low attack complexity (AC:L) and no user interaction (UI:N). Successful exploitation results in high impacts to confidentiality, integrity, and availability (C:H/I:H/A:H) within the unchanged scope (S:U), potentially allowing full system compromise.

The Arista Security Advisory provides details on mitigation: https://www.arista.com/en/support/advisories-notices/security-advisory/20454-security-advisory-0105.

OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

A user with administrator privileges can perform command injection

CWE(s)

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques

T1059 Command and Scripting Interpreter Execution
Adversaries may abuse command and script interpreters to execute commands, scripts, or binaries.
T1059.001 PowerShell Execution
Adversaries may abuse PowerShell commands and scripts for execution.
T1059.003 Windows Command Shell Execution
Adversaries may abuse the Windows command shell for execution.
T1059.004 Unix Shell Execution
Adversaries may abuse Unix shell commands and scripts for execution.
Derived from this CVE’s CWE(s) via the direct CWE→ATT&CK cross-walk.

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2026-25621Same product: Arista Ng Firewall
CVE-2026-25620Same product: Arista Ng Firewall
CVE-2026-25622Same product: Arista Ng Firewall
CVE-2024-12829Same product: Arista Ng Firewall
CVE-2026-25623Same product: Arista Ng Firewall
CVE-2024-9132Same product: Arista Ng Firewall
CVE-2024-12832Same product: Arista Ng Firewall
CVE-2024-47519Same product: Arista Ng Firewall
CVE-2024-47520Same product: Arista Ng Firewall
CVE-2024-12831Same product: Arista Ng Firewall

Affected Assets

arista
ng firewall
≤ 17.1.1

Mitigating Controls

Control response

Prevent
Stop it (NIST 800-53)

Detect
Catch it (NIST detect / respond)

Harden
Shrink the surface (DISA STIG)

Validate
Prove the fix (OWASP ASVS)
  • V1.2.5

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

Developer testing can discover argument-injection flaws in command-construction code but does not stop their introduction.

Input validation directly stops construction of command strings containing unneutralized delimiters or injected arguments.

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 proper input validation and command construction to prevent argument injection.

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

Security testing can detect argument injection but does not prevent it at the source.

prevents

Secure development lifecycle mandates input validation and command construction practices that directly prevent argument injection.

prevents

Application security requirements include explicit rules for safe command-line argument handling and escaping.

prevents

Secure architecture principles discourage unsafe command invocation patterns and favor safer APIs.

prevents

Secure coding standards explicitly require proper neutralization of command arguments, directly eliminating CWE-88.

none

Change management can catch unsafe command patterns during reviews but is not a direct mitigation.

References