CVE-2024-1098VulnerabilityPublished 31 Jan 2024Updated 29 May 2025

CVE-2024-1098: Rebuild · Information Disclosure

Affects RebuildSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 08:30 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.3Medium

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

EPSS: 1.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 66% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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

Attack Vector: Adjacent: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared physical (e.g., Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11) or logical (e.g., local IP subnet) network, or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN to an administrative network zone).
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: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
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 31 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 26 Oct 2026.

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
GitHubRebuild`pkg:github/Rebuild`Other threats	Affected =3.5.0 =3.5.1 =3.5.2 =3.5.3 =3.5.4 =3.5.5	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

Since no official patches are currently available, European organizations should implement immediate compensating controls. These include restricting access to the vulnerable endpoint (/filex/proxy-download) via network-level controls such as firewalls or web application firewalls (WAFs) to limit exposure to trusted IPs only. Monitoring and logging all requests to the QiniuCloud.getStorageFile function can help detect suspicious activity indicative of exploitation attempts. Input validation and sanitization should be reviewed and enhanced to prevent malicious manipulation of the 'url' parameter. Organizations should also consider deploying runtime application self-protection (RASP) tools to detect and block exploitation attempts in real-time. Additionally, conducting an inventory of all Rebuild instances and prioritizing updates or configuration changes is critical. Once patches become available, prompt application is essential. Finally, raising awareness among security teams about this vulnerability and its indicators will improve incident response readiness.

Description

A vulnerability was found in Rebuild up to 3.5.5 and classified as problematic. This issue affects the function QiniuCloud.getStorageFile of the file /filex/proxy-download. The manipulation of the argument url leads to information disclosure. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The associated identifier of this vulnerability is VDB-252455.

Impact

For European organizations, the information disclosure vulnerability poses a moderate risk, especially for entities relying on the Rebuild software for file storage or proxy download functionalities. Exposure of sensitive information can lead to privacy violations, regulatory non-compliance (e.g., GDPR), and potential leakage of intellectual property or internal operational data. While the vulnerability does not allow direct system takeover or data modification, the confidentiality breach can facilitate further targeted attacks or social engineering campaigns. Organizations in sectors such as finance, healthcare, and critical infrastructure, where data sensitivity is paramount, may face reputational damage and legal consequences if exploited. The remote and unauthenticated nature of the vulnerability increases the attack surface, making it accessible to a broad range of threat actors. However, the lack of known active exploits in the wild somewhat reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate it, especially given the public disclosure of the exploit details.

CWE-200Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #20OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product exposes sensitive information to an actor that is not explicitly authorized to have access to that information.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Error Handling (opens in a new tab)
Logging (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.4 (opens in a new tab)
V14.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
V7.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Subverting Environment Variable Values (opens in a new tab)
ICMP Echo Request Ping (opens in a new tab)
TCP SYN Scan (opens in a new tab)
Enumerate Mail Exchange (MX) Records (opens in a new tab)
DNS Zone Transfers (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

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 8 Jul 2025, 01:27 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-200

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats