VulnerabilityPublished 1 Feb 2024Updated 20 Nov 2025

CVE-2024-1141: Logging of Excessive Data

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.5 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 10:12 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 13% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
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: Local: The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Either: the attacker exploits the vulnerability by accessing the target system locally (e.g., keyboard, console), or remotely (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., tricking a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
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 1 Feb 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 or the CVSS exploit maturity 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

To mitigate CVE-2024-1141, organizations should immediately review and adjust their logging configurations to avoid enabling DEBUG level logging in production or sensitive environments. Restrict DEBUG logging to trusted administrators and ensure that logs containing sensitive information are stored securely with strict access controls and encryption where possible. Implement log sanitization or filtering mechanisms to prevent sensitive credentials from being recorded. Regularly audit log files for accidental exposure of secrets and rotate credentials if exposure is suspected. Additionally, monitor for updates or patches from the python-glance-store maintainers or OpenStack community and apply them promptly once available. Employ the principle of least privilege to limit local access to systems running python-glance-store, reducing the risk of exploitation. Finally, integrate security awareness about logging best practices into development and operations teams to prevent similar issues.

Description

A vulnerability was found in python-glance-store. The issue occurs when the package logs the access_key for the glance-store when the DEBUG log level is enabled.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2024-1141 is the potential exposure of sensitive access_key credentials through debug logs. If an attacker gains access to these logs, they could use the credentials to access or manipulate image storage resources within OpenStack environments, leading to unauthorized data access or cloud resource misuse. Although exploitation requires local access, insider threats or attackers who have already compromised a system could escalate their privileges or lateral movement capabilities using the leaked credentials. This vulnerability does not directly affect system integrity or availability but compromises confidentiality, which is critical in cloud infrastructure. Organizations relying on python-glance-store for image management in OpenStack could face increased risk of credential theft, data breaches, and subsequent attacks on cloud services. The absence of known exploits reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate the threat, especially in environments with lax logging controls or inadequate log file protections.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…