CVE-2024-21630VulnerabilityPublished 25 Jan 2024Updated 29 May 2025

CVE-2024-21630: zulip · Missing Authorization

Affects zulipSource CVE Database V5

Mentioned vulnerabilities

CVE-2023-32677

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.3 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 30% 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:L/I:N/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
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: 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: 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 25 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 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
GitHubzulip/zulip`pkg:github/zulip/zulip`Other threats	Affected =8.0	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

European organizations should upgrade Zulip installations from version 8.0 to version 8.1 or later, where the authorization checks have been fixed. Until the upgrade can be performed, administrators should restrict the ability to send invitations exclusively to users who also have permission to add users to streams, ensuring that invitation capabilities are tightly controlled and aligned with stream membership rights. Additionally, organizations should audit current user permissions related to invitations and stream access to identify and remediate any misconfigurations. Monitoring invitation link usage and implementing logging to detect unusual invitation activity can provide early warning of potential abuse. Educating users about the risks of sharing multi-use invitation links and enforcing policies on invitation management will further reduce exposure. Finally, organizations should maintain up-to-date backups and incident response plans to address any potential misuse swiftly.

Description

Zulip is an open-source team collaboration tool. A vulnerability in version 8.0 is similar to CVE-2023-32677, but applies to multi-use invitations, not single-use invitation links as in the prior CVE. Specifically, it applies when the installation has configured non-admins to be able to invite users and create multi-use invitations, and has also configured only admins to be able to invite users to streams. As in CVE-2023-32677, this does not let users invite new users to arbitrary streams, only to streams that the inviter can already see. Version 8.1 fixes this issue. As a workaround, administrators can limit sending of invitations down to users who also have the permission to add users to streams.

Impact

For European organizations using Zulip version 8.0, this vulnerability could lead to unauthorized user invitations within existing streams, potentially exposing sensitive internal communications to unintended participants. Although the impact on confidentiality is limited to streams visible to the inviter, this could still result in information leakage within teams or departments. The integrity and availability of the platform remain unaffected. The risk is particularly relevant for organizations that have delegated invitation privileges to non-admin users without aligning stream invitation permissions, increasing the chance of inadvertent or malicious misuse. Given the collaborative nature of Zulip, unauthorized access to streams could disrupt trust and confidentiality in internal communications, which is critical for compliance with data protection regulations such as GDPR. However, since exploitation requires privileges to send invitations and does not allow arbitrary stream access, the threat is somewhat contained. The absence of known exploits reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate the need for prompt remediation.

CWE-862Missing Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #4OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
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)
Attack patterns
Exploitation of Thunderbolt Protection Flaws (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 7 Jul 2025, 23:55 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-862

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats