CVE-2024-1481VulnerabilityPublished 10 Apr 2024Updated 25 Feb 2026

CVE-2024-1481: freeipa · Improper Input Validation

Affects freeipaSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

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

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

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: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 10 Apr 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 2026-10-25.

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 Hatredhat/freeipa`pkg:rpm/redhat/freeipa`Other threats	Affected =4.10.1	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-2024-1481, organizations should first verify if they are running FreeIPA version 4.10.1 and plan to upgrade to a patched version once available from the vendor. In the absence of an immediate patch, administrators should implement network-level protections such as firewall rules or web application firewalls (WAFs) to restrict or monitor incoming HTTP requests to the FreeIPA server, especially those that could contain suspicious or malformed parameters. Rate limiting and anomaly detection on the FreeIPA HTTP interface can help identify and block potential exploit attempts. Additionally, isolating the FreeIPA server within a secure network segment and limiting access to trusted hosts can reduce exposure. Monitoring FreeIPA logs for unusual kinit invocations or HTTP request patterns may provide early warning of exploitation attempts. Finally, organizations should maintain up-to-date incident response plans to quickly address any denial of service incidents affecting authentication services.

Description

A flaw was found in FreeIPA. This issue may allow a remote attacker to craft a HTTP request with parameters that can be interpreted as command arguments to kinit on the FreeIPA server, which can lead to a denial of service.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2024-1481 is a denial of service on FreeIPA servers running version 4.10.1. This can disrupt authentication services dependent on FreeIPA, potentially causing widespread access issues for users and systems relying on Kerberos tickets for identity verification. In enterprise environments, this could lead to operational downtime, affecting internal applications, services, and possibly critical infrastructure that depends on centralized authentication. Although the vulnerability does not compromise confidentiality or integrity, the loss of availability can have significant operational and business continuity consequences. Organizations with large-scale FreeIPA deployments or those in sectors where identity services are critical (e.g., government, finance, healthcare) may experience more severe disruptions. The lack of required authentication for exploitation means attackers can attempt to disrupt services remotely and anonymously, increasing the threat surface. However, the absence of known exploits in the wild suggests the threat is currently theoretical but should be addressed proactively.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 27 Feb 2026, 09:22 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats