Palo Alto Networks Expedition OS Command Injection Vulnerability
Exploited since 2024-11-14. No WAF vendor names it yet. Our CRS test: blocked.
An OS command injection vulnerability in Palo Alto Networks Expedition allows an unauthenticated attacker to run arbitrary OS commands as root in Expedition, resulting in disclosure of usernames, cleartext passwords, device configurations,… More
An OS command injection vulnerability in Palo Alto Networks Expedition allows an unauthenticated attacker to run arbitrary OS commands as root in Expedition, resulting in disclosure of usernames, cleartext passwords, device configurations, and device API keys of PAN-OS firewalls.
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 4.0Exploitable over the network, with no privileges and no user interaction, leading to full loss of confidentiality, integrity and availability; other systems can also be hit (full loss of confidentiality).
How the score is built
- Attack vectorAn attacker can reach it over the internet; no access to your network needed.Network
- Attack complexityNo built-in defences have to be bypassed; the attack works reliably.Low
- Attack requirementsThe attack works without any special deployment or timing conditions.None
- Privileges requiredNo account or login is needed.None
- User interactionNo one has to click or open anything; the attack works on its own.None
- Confidentiality impact (vulnerable system)An attacker can read all data the affected component holds, or the most sensitive parts of it.High
- Integrity impact (vulnerable system)An attacker can change any data or files the affected component protects.High
- Availability impact (vulnerable system)An attacker can take the component down completely or keep it from serving anyone.High
- Confidentiality impact (other systems)Other systems that rely on it can have all their data read.High
- Integrity impact (other systems)Other systems' data cannot be changed.None
- Availability impact (other systems)Other systems keep working normally.None
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:N/SA:N/AU:N/R:U/V:C/RE:H/U:AmberAlso in the vector: Automatable: No · Recovery: User · Value density: Concentrated · Vulnerability response effort: High · Provider urgency: Amber
Attackers are exploiting this in the wild.
Attackers can script the attack end to end and hit many targets at once.
A successful attack gives full control over the affected software or all of its data.
Public exploits
1 found- NucleiCVE-2024-9463.yamldetection template, replayed in our lab
Links are to third-party code: never run it outside an isolated lab.
Timeline
- 2024-10-09CVE publishedCVE List
- 2024-11-14Added to CISA KEVConfirmed exploitation in the wild
- 2026-11-02Our test: OWASP Core Rule Set blocked itparanoia level 1, anomaly threshold 5, default CRS settings
- 2026-11-02Our test: OWASP Core Rule Set blocked itparanoia level 2, anomaly threshold 5, default CRS settings
Vendor statements
QuotedCloudflareWAF Managed Rules
The CVE predates the oldest entry in this vendor's public feed, so a rule may exist that we cannot see.
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)
We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Each signature lists the CVEs it references, with its id and date. F5 does not state a default action; signatures enforce once staging ends in your policy.
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.