CVE-2024-12087

HIGHNVD 7.57.5Trending — 4 sources updated this weekElevated

Also known asEUVD-2024-50583 (ENISA EUVD) · GHSA-9x68-7qq6-v523 (GitHub Security Advisories)Source: ENISA EUVD

7.5EG

EchelonGraph verdictPlan a fixRemediate within your standard update timelines (the SSVC decision on this page).

CISA's Vulnrichment rates exploitation as PoC; EchelonGraph holds no exploit-code reference for it

CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 2.3%CVSS: 7.5Exploit: No code on recordExposed services: Not assessed

A fix is available — apply it.

A path traversal vulnerability exists in rsync. It stems from behavior enabled by the --inc-recursive option, a default-enabled option for many client options and can be enabled by the server even if not explicitly enabled by the client. When using the --inc-recursive option, a lack of proper symlink verification coupled with deduplication checks occurring on a per-file-list basis could allow a server to write files outside of the client's intended destination directory. A malicious server could write malicious files to arbitrary locations named after valid directories/paths on the client.

CVSS v3: 7.5
EG Score: 7.5HIGHmedium confidence
EG Risk: 50
EPSS PROB: 2.3%
EPSS %ILE: 82nd
KEV: Not listed

What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)

The EG score (7.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.

EG Severity: 7.5 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.NVD CVSS v3 · CVSS v3.0 or v3.1
EG Likelihood: 2.3% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-28). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
Confirmed exploitation: None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
EG Priority: SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.

SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).

A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.

Exploitation public PoC (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table

BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.

The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it

Published

January 14, 2025

Last Modified

October 21, 2026