CVE Intelligence
Skip to main content
CRITICAL

CVE-2024-36053

CVE-2024-36053 Vulnerability Analysis & Exploit Intelligence

In the mintupload package through 4.2.0 for Linux Mint, service-name mishandling leads to command injection via shell metacharacters in check_connection, drop_data_received_cb, and Service.remove. A user can modify a service name in a ~/.linuxmint/mintUpload/services/service file.

Published Updated Sources: cvelistV5, mitre

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the scoring sources call it.

Exploitation

Unreported

no source claims exploitation

EPSS

1%

chance of exploitation in 30 days

Affects

linuxmint

mintupload

CVSS base

9

CRITICAL

CISA SSVC assessment

Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses · SSVC 2.0.3. A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.

CISA

Exploitation

PoC

none · proof-of-concept · active

Automatable

No

can an attacker script all four kill-chain steps

Technical impact

Total

partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Affected scope

The catalog records vendors and products as separate lists, not pairs, so which product belongs to which vendor is not something this page can say.

Vendors (1)

linuxmint

Products (1)

mintupload

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactSource
9CVSS 3.1CRITICAL——cvelistV5

Weakness & attack patterns

  • CWE-20

Attack patterns reported against this CVE. The ATT&CK techniques below are inferred from its weakness class.

  • T1562.003Impair Defenses: Impair Command History Logging
  • T1574.006Hijack Execution Flow: Dynamic Linker Hijacking
  • T1574.007Hijack Execution Flow: Path Interception by PATH Environment Variable

Detection

Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not rules we have tested.

  • Search application, proxy, and WAF logs for requests touching /.linuxmint/mintUpload/services/service.

References

3 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

  • No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
  • No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
  • No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.