CVE-2024-0567VulnerabilityPublished 16 Jan 2024Updated 15 Oct 2026

CVE-2024-0567: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 · Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature

Affects Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 1.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 72% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: None
Availability: High

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 16 Jan 2024
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 2026-10-26.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Red HatRed Hat Enterprise Linux 9	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRed Hat Enterprise Linux 9.2 Extended Update Support	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRHODF-4.15-RHEL-9	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRHODF-4.15-RHEL-9	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRHODF-4.15-RHEL-9	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRHODF-4.15-RHEL-9	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRHODF-4.15-RHEL-9	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRHODF-4.15-RHEL-9	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRHODF-4.15-RHEL-9	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRHODF-4.15-RHEL-9	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRHODF-4.15-RHEL-9	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRHODF-4.15-RHEL-9	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRHODF-4.15-RHEL-9	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRHODF-4.15-RHEL-9	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRHODF-4.15-RHEL-9	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRHODF-4.15-RHEL-9	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRHODF-4.15-RHEL-9	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRHODF-4.15-RHEL-9	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRHODF-4.15-RHEL-9	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRHODF-4.15-RHEL-9	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRHOL-5.8-RHEL-9	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRHOL-5.8-RHEL-9	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRHOL-5.8-RHEL-9	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRHOL-5.8-RHEL-9	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRHOL-5.8-RHEL-9	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRHOL-5.8-RHEL-9	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRHOL-5.8-RHEL-9	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRHOL-5.8-RHEL-9	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRHOL-5.8-RHEL-9	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRHOL-5.8-RHEL-9	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRHOL-5.8-RHEL-9	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRHOL-5.8-RHEL-9	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRHOL-5.8-RHEL-9	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRHOL-5.8-RHEL-9	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRHOL-5.8-RHEL-9	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRHOL-5.8-RHEL-9	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRHOL-5.8-RHEL-9	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRed Hat Enterprise Linux 6	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRed Hat Enterprise Linux 7	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRed Hat Enterprise Linux 8	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRed Hat Enterprise Linux 9	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRed Hat OpenShift Container Platform 3.11	Affected–	Fixed in–
Gnutlsgnutls/gnutls`pkg:rpm/gnutls/gnutls`Other threats	Affected =3.8.0	Fixed in–

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2024-0567, organizations should prioritize upgrading GnuTLS to a version where this vulnerability is patched once it becomes available. Until a patch is released, administrators should consider restricting network access to services using cockpit-certificate-ensure to trusted internal networks only, employing firewall rules or network segmentation to limit exposure. Monitoring logs for repeated certificate validation failures can help detect attempted exploitation or misconfigurations. Additionally, reviewing and hardening certificate chain configurations to avoid complex distributed trust scenarios may reduce the likelihood of triggering the flaw. Employing alternative certificate validation tools or temporarily disabling automated certificate validation in cockpit, if feasible, can serve as interim measures. Regularly updating and auditing cryptographic libraries and management tools is essential to prevent similar issues. Finally, organizations should maintain incident response readiness to quickly address any service disruptions caused by this vulnerability.

Description

A vulnerability was found in GnuTLS, where a cockpit (which uses gnuTLS) rejects a certificate chain with distributed trust. This issue occurs when validating a certificate chain with cockpit-certificate-ensure. This flaw allows an unauthenticated, remote client or attacker to initiate a denial of service attack.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2024-0567 is a denial of service condition affecting systems using GnuTLS 3.8.0, particularly those employing cockpit for system management. Organizations relying on cockpit-certificate-ensure for certificate validation may experience service disruptions, potentially leading to loss of remote management capabilities or interruptions in secure communications. This can affect operational continuity, especially in environments where automated certificate renewal and validation are critical. Although confidentiality and integrity are not directly compromised, the availability impact can have cascading effects on business operations, incident response, and system administration. The vulnerability could be exploited remotely without authentication or user interaction, increasing the risk of widespread disruption if exposed to untrusted networks. Enterprises with large-scale Linux deployments, cloud service providers, and managed service providers using cockpit and GnuTLS are particularly at risk. The lack of known exploits in the wild reduces immediate threat but does not eliminate the risk of future exploitation.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 28 Feb 2026, 11:04 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats