CVE-2024-34580VulnerabilityPublished 26 Jun 2024Updated 8 Aug 2024

CVE-2024-34580: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 07:57 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 10% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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

Attack Vector: Local: The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Either: the attacker exploits the vulnerability by accessing the target system locally (e.g., keyboard, console), or remotely (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., tricking a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
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: 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: 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: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 26 Jun 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

AI-suggested

1. Avoid direct use of Apache XML Security for C++ where possible, especially in security-critical applications. 2. If use is necessary, ensure strict configuration to disable or tightly control processing of KeyInfo elements and any external resource fetching. 3. Implement network-level controls such as egress filtering and internal firewall rules to restrict outbound requests from applications using this library. 4. Employ input validation and XML schema validation to detect and reject malicious XML signatures containing SSRF payloads. 5. Conduct thorough code reviews and security testing focusing on XML signature processing logic. 6. Consider using alternative, better-maintained libraries with secure defaults for XML signature processing. 7. Monitor application logs for unusual outbound network requests that could indicate SSRF exploitation attempts. 8. Keep abreast of updates from the Apache project for any future patches or guidance.

Description

Apache XML Security for C++ through 2.0.4 implements the XML Signature Syntax and Processing (XMLDsig) specification without protection against an SSRF payload in a KeyInfo element. NOTE: the project disputes this CVE Record on the grounds that any vulnerabilities are the result of a failure to configure XML Security for C++ securely. Even when avoiding this particular issue, any use of this library would need considerable additional code and a deep understanding of the standards and protocols involved to arrive at a secure implementation for any particular use case. We recommend against continued direct use of this library.

Impact

The vulnerability could allow attackers with local access and some privileges to perform SSRF attacks, potentially leading to unauthorized internal network access, information disclosure, or disruption of services. While the impact on confidentiality, integrity, and availability is limited, SSRF can be a stepping stone for more severe attacks, especially in complex network environments. Organizations relying on Apache XML Security for C++ for XML signature validation may face risks if the library is used without proper configuration and additional security controls. The complexity of securely implementing XMLDsig means that many applications could inadvertently expose themselves to SSRF or related attacks, increasing the risk of lateral movement or data leakage within internal networks.

Summary

CVE-2024-34580 identifies a vulnerability in Apache XML Security for C++ versions through 2.0.4, specifically in the implementation of the XML Signature Syntax and Processing (XMLDsig) standard. The vulnerability involves a lack of protection against Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) attacks via the KeyInfo element within XML signatures. SSRF allows an attacker to craft malicious XML signatures that cause the application to make unintended network requests, potentially exposing internal resources or enabling further attacks. The vulnerability requires the attacker to have local privileges (AV:L) and low complexity (AC:L) to exploit, with no user interaction needed (UI:N). The scope is unchanged (S:U), and the impact affects confidentiality, integrity, and availability to a limited extent (C:L/I:L/A:L). The Apache project disputes the CVE, arguing that the vulnerability results from improper configuration rather than a direct flaw in the library itself. They also note that secure use of the library requires significant additional coding and expert understanding of XML security standards. No patches or known exploits are currently available, emphasizing the importance of cautious use or avoidance of this library in security-critical environments.

CWE-918Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessCWE Top 25 (2025): #22OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The web server receives a URL or similar request from an upstream component and retrieves the contents of this URL, but it does not sufficiently ensure that the request is being sent to the expected destination.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Server Side Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Scripting Prevention (opens in a new tab)
DOM based XSS Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.6.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.2.6 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Server Side Request Forgery (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, 04:48 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats