How do you patch or mitigate CVE-2024-48248 (NAKIVO Backup and Replication Absolute Path Traversal)?

What “patch or mitigate” means for an actively exploited path traversal CVE

For a vulnerability like CVE-2024-48248, the practical question is not just whether a patch exists, but whether you can remove exposure fast enough to stop file-system traversal from reaching sensitive paths. That means confirming every NAKIVO Backup and Replication deployment, then either applying the vendor fix or, if that is not possible, using the vendor’s mitigation path to reduce or eliminate reachable exposure.

Because this class of issue can be used to read or manipulate files outside the intended directory, the safest operational assumption is that exposed instances may already have leaked sensitive configuration, backup metadata, or credentials. The right response is therefore to treat patching, exposure reduction, and compromise checks as one sequence, not as separate tasks.

How to confirm exposure and choose the right remediation path

Start by building a complete inventory of all NAKIVO Backup and Replication instances, including test systems, DR environments, and any externally reachable management surfaces. If an instance is internet-facing, prioritise it first, because public exposure materially changes the urgency and the likelihood of exploitation.

Use the vendor advisory for version-specific instructions, then verify whether the instance can accept the security update cleanly or whether you need to rely on a documented mitigation while change control catches up. For vulnerability triage and prioritisation, it is sensible to pair vendor guidance with CISA’s Known Exploited Vulnerabilities Catalog and the NIST National Vulnerability Database so you are working from the authoritative record of the issue and its exploitation status.

If your environment follows a vulnerability management process, this is the kind of event that should bypass routine queues and move into emergency remediation. NHIMG’s Zero-Day and Exploited Vulnerabilities Guide is useful here because it frames the fast path from discovery to mitigation, not just the patch itself.

What to do when patching has to wait

If you cannot patch immediately, reduce the attack surface first. Remove public exposure, restrict management access to trusted admin networks, enforce temporary network controls, and disable any unnecessary remote paths that can reach the vulnerable component. If the vendor states that mitigation is unavailable or insufficient in your deployment, discontinuing use of the product is the safer outcome than leaving a reachable instance exposed.

Do not treat mitigation as a substitute for follow-up work. A traversal flaw can expose files that help an attacker move laterally later, so you should assume configuration secrets, backup repositories, session material, or environment data may need review. The closest relevant analogue in the NHIMG corpus is Web Application Attacks Guide, which covers path traversal and the broader class of file-access abuses that make these incidents dangerous.

When the immediate fix is delayed, document the exception with an expiry date, a named owner, and a clear compensating control. If the product remains in service, the compensating control should be stronger than “monitor and hope”, it should visibly reduce reachable paths and preserve a clear rollback or retirement plan.

Practitioner Guidance

What to verify: Confirm whether the vulnerable instance was reachable before remediation and whether any sensitive file paths, backup artifacts, or configuration material were accessible from the affected service account context. If the instance was internet-facing, treat that as a material escalation factor.

Decision rule: If you can apply the vendor update safely, patch first and then validate service health. If you cannot patch, remove exposure or retire the product before leaving the issue open, because a documented mitigation that still leaves the vulnerable path reachable is not a durable fix.

What to measure: Track time to isolate, time to patch, and time to complete compromise review. For exploited flaws, those three measures matter more than the nominal ticket closure time because they show how quickly the exposure was actually removed.

Practitioner takeaway: For an actively exploited traversal issue, the priority is to shrink reachable attack surface immediately, then confirm whether the system leaked anything sensitive before you declare the case closed.

Related resources from NHI Mgmt Group

• CVE-2024-48248 (NAKIVO Backup and Replication Absolute Path Traversal)
• How do you patch or mitigate CVE-2024-13161 (Ivanti Endpoint Manager (EPM) Absolute Path Traversal)?
• How do you patch or mitigate CVE-2024-13160 (Ivanti Endpoint Manager (EPM) Absolute Path Traversal)?
• How do you patch or mitigate CVE-2024-13159 (Ivanti Endpoint Manager (EPM) Absolute Path Traversal)?