CVE-2024-1657VulnerabilityPublished 25 Apr 2024Updated 25 Feb 2026

CVE-2024-1657: Cleartext Transmission

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.1 High.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.1High

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 31% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
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: 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: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to 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 25 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

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2024-1657, organizations should immediately ensure that all Ansible Automation Platform components, especially the Rulebook EDA server, are updated to versions that enforce secure WebSocket connections (WSS) rather than cleartext WebSocket (WS). If patches are not yet available, network administrators should implement strict network segmentation and access controls to limit access to the CIDR blocks where Ansible components reside, reducing the attack surface. Monitoring network traffic for unencrypted WebSocket connections and anomalous data transfers can help detect exploitation attempts. Additionally, organizations should review and harden internal network security policies, enforce the use of VPNs or encrypted tunnels for internal communications, and audit automation rulebook contents for sensitive information exposure. Employing zero-trust principles within internal networks can further reduce risk. Finally, educating staff about the risks of internal network access and maintaining least privilege principles for all users and machines will help prevent attackers from gaining the necessary foothold to exploit this vulnerability.

Description

A flaw was found in the ansible automation platform. An insecure WebSocket connection was being used in installation from the Ansible rulebook EDA server. An attacker that has access to any machine in the CIDR block could download all rulebook data from the WebSocket, resulting in loss of confidentiality and integrity of the system.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2024-1657 is the compromise of confidentiality and integrity of sensitive automation rulebook data within the Ansible Automation Platform. Attackers who exploit this vulnerability can eavesdrop on and extract automation rules, potentially gaining insights into operational workflows, security policies, and infrastructure configurations. This exposure could enable further attacks such as privilege escalation, unauthorized changes to automation workflows, or disruption of automated processes. Since the vulnerability affects the installation phase and involves network-level interception, organizations with flat or poorly segmented networks are particularly vulnerable. The loss of integrity in automation rules can lead to unauthorized or malicious automation executions, causing operational disruptions or security breaches. Given Ansible's widespread use in enterprise IT, cloud environments, and DevOps pipelines, the vulnerability could have far-reaching consequences for organizations globally, especially those managing critical infrastructure or sensitive data.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…