VulnerabilityPublished 7 May 2024Updated 2 Aug 2024

CVE-2024-33856: Logpoint · Observable Response Discrepancy

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium · fixed in 7.4.0 : update Logpoint when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 12:54 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 31% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Affects: Logpoint before 7.4.0
Patch: Available – fixed in 7.4.0

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
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: 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: 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 7 May 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

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2024-33856, organizations should: 1) Upgrade Logpoint to version 7.4.0 or later once the patch is officially released, as this version addresses the timing discrepancy issue. 2) Implement rate limiting and throttling on the Forgot Password endpoint to reduce the feasibility of automated username enumeration attempts. 3) Introduce consistent response times and generic error messages regardless of username validity to eliminate timing side-channel information leakage. 4) Monitor logs and network traffic for unusual activity patterns targeting the Forgot Password functionality, such as repeated requests from the same IP or rapid username submissions. 5) Enforce strong password policies and multi-factor authentication (MFA) to mitigate risks arising from compromised credentials. 6) Educate users about phishing risks and encourage reporting of suspicious communications. 7) Conduct regular security assessments and penetration testing to identify and remediate similar information disclosure issues in authentication workflows. These steps collectively reduce the attack surface and limit the potential impact of username enumeration attacks.

Description

An issue was discovered in Logpoint before 7.4.0. An attacker can enumerate a valid list of usernames by observing the response time at the Forgot Password endpoint.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2024-33856 is the exposure of valid usernames through timing side-channel analysis at the Forgot Password endpoint. This information disclosure can significantly aid attackers in crafting targeted attacks such as phishing campaigns, credential stuffing, and brute-force password guessing, potentially leading to unauthorized access if combined with other vulnerabilities or weak password policies. While the vulnerability itself does not allow direct compromise of system integrity or availability, it lowers the barrier for attackers to identify legitimate user accounts, increasing the risk of subsequent exploitation. Organizations relying on Logpoint for security monitoring and incident response may face increased risk of account compromise, which could undermine the effectiveness of their security posture. The medium CVSS score reflects the moderate risk posed by this vulnerability, emphasizing the need for timely mitigation to prevent escalation. The lack of known exploits in the wild suggests that proactive remediation can effectively reduce exposure before widespread exploitation occurs.

CWE-204Observable Response Discrepancy (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product provides different responses to incoming requests in a way that reveals internal state information to an unauthorized actor outside of the intended control sphere.
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.
Implementation
Ensure that error messages only contain minimal details that are useful to the intended audience and no one else. The messages need to strike the balance between being too cryptic (which can confuse users) or being too detailed (which may reveal more than intended).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Error Handling (opens in a new tab)
Logging (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
ICMP IP Total Length Field Probe (opens in a new tab)
ICMP IP 'ID' Field Error Message Probe (opens in a new tab)
Application Fingerprinting (opens in a new tab)
System Footprinting (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 28 Feb 2026, 03:04 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-204

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats