ThreatPort
Login Register
CVE-2024-29895 CRITICAL

CVE-2024-29895 exposure check for affected product

Check whether public-facing assets expose affected vendor affected product signals related to CVE-2024-29895. Severity: CRITICAL.

Start free scan View $50 Pricing

From CVE Record to External Exposure

Cacti provides an operational monitoring and fault management framework. A command injection vulnerability on the 1.3.x DEV branch allows any unauthenticated user to execute arbitrary command on the server when `register_argc_argv` option of PHP is `On`. In `cmd_realtime.php` line 119, the `$poller_id` used as part of the command execution is sourced from `$_SERVER['argv']`, which can be controlled by URL when `register_argc_argv` option of PHP is `On`. And this option is `On` by default in many environments such as the main PHP Docker image for PHP. Commit 53e8014d1f082034e0646edc6286cde3800c683d contains a patch for the issue, but this commit was reverted in commit 99633903cad0de5ace636249de16f77e57a3c8fc.

CVE-2024-29895 vulnerability should be triaged by matching the affected vendor and product to live, internet-facing assets rather than treating the CVE as an abstract feed item. ThreatPort focuses on the first question that budget-constrained IT leaders and CISOs ask: what can an outside observer find today, how severe is it, and what should be fixed first?

Known Exploitation Record

Known ransomware campaign use
Not recorded
EPSS exploitation probability
94.29% (100p)
CVSS base score
10 (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H)
Disclosed
2024-05-14
Weakness type
CWE-77

Source: CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog and FIRST.org EPSS.

What ThreatPort Checks

Identify externally reachable services that appear related to affected vendor affected product.
Map detected technologies to CVE-2024-29895, severity context, and practical remediation priority.
Check TLS, DNS, headers, exposed panels, stale endpoints, and service fingerprints from a public attacker perspective.
Produce a concise scorecard first, then unlock deeper AI pentest evidence and PDF reporting when remediation planning begins.

The output is intentionally practical: ownership clues, risk context, remediation hints, and repeatable evidence that can be shared with technical teams or leadership. It is not positioned as magic compliance automation or a replacement for human security judgment.

Lean security teams rarely need another broad vulnerability list. They need to know whether an exposed endpoint, an expired certificate, a weak DNS setting, or a CVE-linked service is likely to affect the systems they actually run. ThreatPort scans from the outside in, ranks what it finds by real reachability rather than raw CVSS, and hands back evidence a team can act on the same day.

Route-Specific Evidence Profile

CVE-2024-29895 is tracked here so you can check whether the affected software is reachable from outside your network. Disclosed 2024-05-14.

Assets This Page Should Care About

Public domains Subdomains Externally reachable web apps TLS endpoints DNS records

Signals Worth Prioritizing

Forgotten subdomains
Weak DNS or email controls
Outdated services
Risky headers

What Should Be Reviewed First in This Context?

For This team, the first step is to validate internet-facing assets with business relevance instead of producing a generic vulnerability list.

Forgotten subdomains
Weak DNS or email controls
Outdated services
Risky headers

Action Checklist

  1. Confirm whether affected product is present on any public domain, subdomain, API, or admin surface.
  2. Prioritize CRITICAL exposure only when the affected service is reachable or business-critical.
  3. Patch, disable, isolate, or put compensating controls in front of the affected service.
  4. Re-scan after remediation to capture before-and-after evidence for technical teams or leadership.

Context-Aware Next Fixes

  1. Verify ownership of exposed assets
  2. Close unnecessary public services
  3. Remediate the highest-confidence exposed findings first, then re-scan to prove closure.

Useful evidence for this context usually maps to ISO 27001, SOC 2, vendor security reviews. ThreatPort keeps the language cautious: this is operational security evidence, not a legal certification or a guarantee that every auditor will accept a generated report without review.