CVE-2024-10295VulnerabilityPublished 24 Oct 2024Updated 20 Mar 2026

CVE-2024-10295: Incorrect Authorization

Source 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: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 33% 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:H/I:N/A:N

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

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: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 24 Oct 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

AI-suggested

1. Apply official patches or updates from the APICast or Red Hat vendors as soon as they become available to address the base64 decoding flaw. 2. Until patches are released, disable or restrict the use of HTTP Basic Authentication in APICast configurations, favoring more secure authentication mechanisms such as OAuth or mutual TLS. 3. Implement strict input validation and sanitization on authentication headers to reject malformed or non-base64 encoded credentials before processing. 4. Deploy custom middleware or API gateway filters to detect and block requests with suspicious or malformed Authorization headers containing special characters. 5. Enable detailed logging and monitoring of authentication attempts, focusing on anomalies in Authorization headers to detect potential exploitation attempts early. 6. Conduct regular security assessments and penetration testing on API gateways to identify similar weaknesses proactively. 7. Educate development and operations teams about the risks of improper authentication handling and encourage secure coding practices. 8. Consider network segmentation and access controls to limit exposure of API gateways to untrusted networks. 9. Review and audit API access policies to ensure least privilege principles are enforced, minimizing potential damage from unauthorized access.

Description

A flaw was found in Gateway. Sending a non-base64 'basic' auth with special characters can cause APICast to incorrectly authenticate a request. A malformed basic authentication header containing special characters bypasses authentication and allows unauthorized access to the backend. This issue can occur due to a failure in the base64 decoding process, which causes APICast to skip the rest of the authentication checks and proceed with routing the request upstream.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2024-10295 is unauthorized access to backend services protected by APICast Gateway. Attackers can bypass authentication controls by sending specially crafted malformed basic authentication headers, gaining access to potentially sensitive data or internal APIs without valid credentials. This compromises confidentiality, exposing sensitive information such as user data, business logic, or configuration details. Although the vulnerability does not directly affect data integrity or system availability, unauthorized access can lead to further exploitation or data leakage. Organizations relying on APICast for API security may face increased risk of data breaches, compliance violations, and reputational damage. The ease of exploitation over the network without authentication or user interaction increases the threat level, especially in environments exposing APIs to the internet. The absence of known exploits in the wild currently reduces immediate risk but does not diminish the urgency for remediation. The vulnerability could be leveraged in targeted attacks against enterprises, cloud providers, or service providers using APICast, potentially impacting critical infrastructure or sensitive business operations.

CWE-863Incorrect Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #17OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.
Architecture and Design
Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
V13.4.2 (opens in a new tab)
V7.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 20 Mar 2026, 22:32 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-863

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats