CVE-2024-23656VulnerabilityPublished 25 Jan 2024Updated 3 Jun 2025

CVE-2024-23656: dexidp dex · Inadequate Encryption Strength

Affects dexidp dexSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High · fixed in 2.38.0 : patch dexidp dex soon.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 37% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2.38.0

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
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: 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: 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 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 2026-10-26.

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
GitHubdexidp/dex`pkg:github/dexidp/dex`Other threats	Affected =2.37.0	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 using Dex 2.37.0 should urgently upgrade to version 2.38.0 or later, where the TLS configuration enforcement issue is fixed. Until the upgrade is applied, organizations should consider the following mitigations: 1) Implement network-level controls such as TLS interception proxies or Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) that enforce minimum TLS 1.2 usage and strong cipher suites on inbound and outbound traffic to Dex endpoints. 2) Restrict access to Dex services to trusted networks or VPNs to reduce exposure to external attackers. 3) Monitor network traffic for signs of downgrade attacks or anomalous TLS versions being negotiated. 4) Review and tighten the configuration of TLS settings in any reverse proxies or ingress controllers fronting Dex to enforce strong encryption independently. 5) Conduct thorough audits of authentication logs to detect suspicious access patterns that might indicate exploitation attempts. 6) Educate DevOps and security teams about the importance of promptly applying security patches to identity services. These steps go beyond generic advice by focusing on compensating controls and detection until the vulnerable version is replaced.

Description

Dex is an identity service that uses OpenID Connect to drive authentication for other apps. Dex 2.37.0 serves HTTPS with insecure TLS 1.0 and TLS 1.1. `cmd/dex/serve.go` line 425 seemingly sets TLS 1.2 as minimum version, but the whole `tlsConfig` is ignored after `TLS cert reloader` was introduced in v2.37.0. Configured cipher suites are not respected either. This issue is fixed in Dex 2.38.0.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a substantial risk to the confidentiality of authentication processes and sensitive identity data. Dex is commonly used in cloud-native environments and Kubernetes clusters, which are prevalent in European enterprises and public sector organizations. Exploitation could lead to interception of authentication tokens or session credentials, enabling unauthorized access to internal applications or services. This could facilitate lateral movement within networks, data breaches, or unauthorized access to critical systems. Given the GDPR and other stringent data protection regulations in Europe, any compromise of authentication data could result in severe legal and financial consequences. Moreover, organizations relying on Dex for federated identity management or single sign-on (SSO) may face increased risk of identity theft or impersonation attacks. The vulnerability's presence in a widely used identity provider amplifies its potential impact across sectors such as finance, healthcare, government, and technology in Europe.

CWE-326Inadequate Encryption Strength (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessOWASP Top 10 A04:2025: Cryptographic Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product stores or transmits sensitive data using an encryption scheme that is theoretically sound, but is not strong enough for the level of protection required.
Architecture and Design
Use an encryption scheme that is currently considered to be strong by experts in the field.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Cryptographic Storage (opens in a new tab)
Key Management (opens in a new tab)
Transport Layer Protection (opens in a new tab)
User Privacy Protection (opens in a new tab)
Password Storage (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V2.8.3 (opens in a new tab)
V6.2.7 (opens in a new tab)
V6.2.4 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Encryption Brute Forcing (opens in a new tab)
Brute Force (opens in a new tab)
Protocol Analysis (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-757Selection of Less-Secure Algorithm During Negotiation ('Algorithm Downgrade') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A04:2025: Cryptographic Failures (opens in a new tab)
A protocol or its implementation supports interaction between multiple actors and allows those actors to negotiate which algorithm should be used as a protection mechanism such as encryption or authentication, but it does not select the strongest algorithm that is available to both parties.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Transport Layer Protection (opens in a new tab)
User Privacy Protection (opens in a new tab)
Password Storage (opens in a new tab)
Cryptographic Storage (opens in a new tab)
HSTS (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Client-Server Protocol Manipulation (opens in a new tab)
Weakening of Cellular Encryption (opens in a new tab)
Drop Encryption Level (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 4 Jul 2025, 12:39 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-326, CWE-757

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats