VulnerabilityPublished 31 Mar 2024Updated 1 Aug 2024

CVE-2024-25983: fedora · Insecure Direct Object Reference

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 3.5 Low.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 09:15 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

3.5Low

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

EPSS: 0.6% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 48% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: Low
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: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
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: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on 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 31 Mar 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 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-2024-25983, organizations should: 1) Immediately review and update the authorization logic on comment-related endpoints to ensure that user-controlled keys are validated against the authenticated user's permissions and ownership of the target resource. 2) Implement server-side checks that strictly enforce that comments can only be added to dashboards or profiles owned or authorized for the authenticated user. 3) Conduct code audits focusing on access control mechanisms around user-generated content features to identify similar weaknesses. 4) Monitor logs for anomalous comment creation activities, such as comments appearing on unexpected user dashboards or from unusual user accounts. 5) Educate developers on secure coding practices related to authorization and input validation, emphasizing the dangers of trusting user-supplied identifiers without verification. 6) If available, apply vendor patches or updates addressing this vulnerability as soon as they are released. 7) Consider implementing rate limiting or additional authentication factors for comment submission to reduce abuse potential. 8) Inform users about the issue and encourage reporting of suspicious comments to enable rapid response.

Description

Insufficient checks in a web service made it possible to add comments to the comments block on another user's dashboard when it was not otherwise available (e.g., on their profile page).

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2024-25983 is on data integrity, as attackers can inject unauthorized comments into other users' dashboards. While this does not expose sensitive information or disrupt service availability, it can undermine trust in the platform by allowing malicious or misleading content to appear under another user's profile. For organizations, this could lead to reputational damage, user dissatisfaction, and potential misuse of the comment feature for social engineering or phishing if attackers post deceptive messages. Since exploitation requires authentication and user interaction, the risk is somewhat limited to insiders or registered users with some privileges. However, in environments where user-generated content is critical or where dashboards are used for collaboration or decision-making, unauthorized comment injection could have operational consequences. The vulnerability affects all organizations using the impacted software versions, especially those with large user bases or sensitive collaboration environments. The lack of known exploits reduces immediate risk, but the low complexity and remote nature of the attack vector mean that attackers could develop exploits if motivated.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 26 Feb 2026, 10:51 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats