CVE-2024-33669VulnerabilityPublished 26 Apr 2024Updated 2 Aug 2024

CVE-2024-33669: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.1 Medium · fixed in 4.6.2 : update Passbolt Browser Extension when convenient.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.1Medium

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

EPSS: 0.6% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 50% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Affects: Passbolt Browser Extension before 4.6.2
Patch: Available – fixed in 4.6.2

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

Attack Complexity: High
Attack Vector: Network
Availability: None
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: None
Privileges Required: None
Scope: Changed
User Interaction: Required

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

Attack Complexity: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
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).
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.
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.
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.
Scope: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
User Interaction: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 26 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 this vulnerability, organizations and users should upgrade the Passbolt Browser Extension to version 4.6.2 or later, where this issue has been addressed. If you cannot patch yet, users should avoid typing passwords in environments where network traffic can be monitored or intercepted, such as unsecured public Wi-Fi networks. Network administrators should enforce the use of encrypted and trusted networks and consider deploying network security controls such as HTTPS inspection prevention and strict TLS enforcement to reduce the risk of traffic interception. Additionally, organizations should implement multi-factor authentication (MFA) to reduce the impact of potential password compromise. Monitoring network traffic for unusual patterns and educating users about secure password entry practices can further reduce risk. Finally, reviewing and limiting the exposure of password checking APIs and ensuring that extensions handle password data securely without leaking partial inputs are critical development best practices.

Description

An issue was discovered in Passbolt Browser Extension before 4.6.2. It can send multiple requests to HaveIBeenPwned while a password is being typed, which results in an information leak. This allows an attacker capable of observing Passbolt's HTTPS queries to the Pwned Password API to more easily brute force passwords that are manually typed by the user.

Impact

This vulnerability primarily impacts the confidentiality of user passwords managed via the Passbolt Browser Extension. Attackers with network visibility—such as those on the same local network, compromised routers, or capable of performing man-in-the-middle attacks—can intercept the HTTPS queries to the HIBP API and glean partial password information. This leakage can facilitate more efficient brute force or guessing attacks against user passwords, potentially leading to unauthorized access to user accounts or systems protected by these passwords. Organizations relying on Passbolt for password management may face increased risk of credential compromise, especially if users type passwords in environments where network traffic can be monitored. While the vulnerability does not directly impact system integrity or availability, the resulting credential exposure can lead to broader security incidents, including account takeover and lateral movement within networks.

CWE-200Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #20OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product exposes sensitive information to an actor that is not explicitly authorized to have access to that information.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Error Handling (opens in a new tab)
Logging (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.4 (opens in a new tab)
V14.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
V7.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Subverting Environment Variable Values (opens in a new tab)
ICMP Echo Request Ping (opens in a new tab)
TCP SYN Scan (opens in a new tab)
Enumerate Mail Exchange (MX) Records (opens in a new tab)
DNS Zone Transfers (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

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 26 Feb 2026, 04:33 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-200

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats