SonicWall SonicOS SSLVPN Improper Authentication Vulnerability
Exploited since 2025-02-18. 2 of 8 rule sources name it; Cloudflare blocks by default. Our CRS test: not blocked.
An Improper Authentication vulnerability in the SSLVPN authentication mechanism allows a remote attacker to bypass authentication.
Edge coverage
Claimed by vendorsAsk Vigil
AI · answers from this pageWorkers AI (Llama 3.3). Can be wrong: check the cited source.
Severity, decoded
CVSS 3.1Exploitable over the network, with no privileges and no user interaction, leading to low impact on confidentiality and full loss of availability.
How the score is built
- Attack vectorAn attacker can reach it over the internet; no access to your network needed.Network
- Attack complexityNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.Low
- Privileges requiredNo account or login is needed.None
- User interactionNo one has to click or open anything; the attack works on its own.None
- ScopeThe damage stays within the vulnerable component.Unchanged
- Confidentiality impactAn attacker can read some data, but has no control over what they get.Low
- Integrity impactData cannot be changed by the attacker.None
- Availability impactAn attacker can take the component down completely or keep it from serving anyone.High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:HAttackers are exploiting this in the wild.
Attackers can script the attack end to end and hit many targets at once.
A successful attack gives limited control over the affected software or limited access to its data.
Public exploits
1 found- NucleiCVE-2024-53704.yamldetection template, replayed in our lab
Links are to third-party code: never run it outside an isolated lab.
Timeline
- 2025-01-09CVE publishedCVE List
- 2025-02-18Added to CISA KEVConfirmed exploitation in the wild
- 2025-02-18Cloudflare ships a ruleSonicWall SSLVPN - Auth Bypass - CVE:CVE-2024-53704
- 2025-03-11F5 ships a ruleSonicWall SSLVPN Authentication Bypass
- 2026-11-02Our test: OWASP Core Rule Set let it throughparanoia level 1, anomaly threshold 5, default CRS settings
- 2026-11-02Our test: OWASP Core Rule Set let it throughparanoia level 2, anomaly threshold 5, default CRS settings
Vendor statements
QuotedCloudflareWAF Managed Rules
First rule 2025-02-18, 40 days after the CVE was published.
SonicWall SSLVPN - Auth Bypass - CVE:CVE-2024-53704. Previous action: Log. New action: Block. This is a New Detection
SonicWall SSLVPN 2 - Auth Bypass - CVE:CVE-2024-53704. Previous action: Log. New action: Block. This is a New Detection
AWSAWS WAF Managed Rules
We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. AWS often describes a vulnerability without naming its CVE (for example "Log4j"). We count only entries that name the CVE, so AWS coverage is understated.
Microsoft AzureFront Door and Application Gateway WAF (DRS)
We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. The rule tables name CVEs but carry no dates, so Azure is left out of every time-to-rule figure.
Google CloudCloud Armor preconfigured WAF rules
We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Google names few CVEs: the release notes start in May 2024 and the rules reference lists CVEs without dates. Its cve-canary rules are opt-in.
FastlyNext-Gen WAF virtual patches
The CVE predates the oldest entry in this vendor's public feed, so a rule may exist that we cannot see.
F5Attack signatures (Distributed Cloud WAF)
First rule 2025-03-11, 61 days after the CVE was published.
Added: signature 200013109 "SonicWall SSLVPN Authentication Bypass" (Authentication/Authorization Attacks, risk High), systems: Other Web Server. References: CVE-2024-53704.
AkamaiApp & API Protector (Adaptive Security Engine)
This vendor publishes no machine-readable rule changelog we can check.
OWASP CRSCore Rule Set (open source, used inside many WAFs)
We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. CRS rarely names CVEs: it relies on generic detections. Our own lab measures what it actually blocks.
Social
No posts seen yet on X, Bluesky, Mastodon, Hacker News or GitHub.