VulnerabilityPublished 28 Mar 2024Updated 20 Nov 2025

CVE-2024-3019: pcp · Resource Exposure

Affects pcpSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.8 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 10:12 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.8High

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

EPSS: 1.0% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 63% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Adjacent: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared physical (e.g., Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11) or logical (e.g., local IP subnet) network, or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN to an administrative network zone).
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: 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: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 28 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 or the CVSS exploit maturity 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/pcp`pkg:rpm/redhat/pcp`Other threats	Affected =4.3.4	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-2024-3019, organizations should first ensure that pmproxy is not enabled unless explicitly required. If pmproxy must be used, restrict network access to the Redis backend by implementing strict firewall rules or network segmentation to limit access only to trusted hosts. Disable Redis commands that are not necessary or configure Redis with authentication and access controls if supported in the deployment. Monitor the activation of pmproxy services, especially via the Cockpit web interface, and audit network exposure of Redis instances regularly. Apply any patches or updates released by PCP maintainers promptly once available. Consider using host-based intrusion detection systems to alert on unusual Redis activity. Educate administrators about the risks of enabling pmproxy without proper network controls. In virtualized or cloud environments, enforce strict security groups and network policies to prevent unauthorized lateral movement. Finally, review and harden the overall PCP and Redis configurations to follow the principle of least privilege and minimize attack surfaces.

Description

A flaw was found in PCP. The default pmproxy configuration exposes the Redis server backend to the local network, allowing remote command execution with the privileges of the Redis user. This issue can only be exploited when pmproxy is running. By default, pmproxy is not running and needs to be started manually. The pmproxy service is usually started from the 'Metrics settings' page of the Cockpit web interface. This flaw affects PCP versions 4.3.4 and newer.

Impact

The impact of CVE-2024-3019 is substantial for organizations running PCP with pmproxy enabled. Successful exploitation allows an attacker on the local network to execute arbitrary commands with Redis user privileges, potentially leading to full system compromise. This includes unauthorized access to sensitive performance data, modification or deletion of critical monitoring information, and disruption of monitoring services, which can hinder incident detection and response. The high severity score reflects the broad impact on confidentiality, integrity, and availability. In environments where Redis is trusted and network segmentation is insufficient, attackers could pivot to other internal systems. The requirement for local network access limits remote exploitation but does not eliminate risk, especially in cloud or virtualized environments where network boundaries may be blurred. Organizations relying on PCP for performance monitoring and management could face operational disruptions and increased risk of lateral movement by attackers. The absence of authentication on Redis exacerbates the risk, making it easier for attackers to exploit once pmproxy is active. Although no known exploits exist yet, the vulnerability should be treated as critical due to the ease of exploitation and potential damage.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…