VulnerabilityPublished 26 Jun 2024Updated 2 Aug 2024

CVE-2024-34581: Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Source CVE Database V5

Mentioned vulnerabilities

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.3 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.3High

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 15% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
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: 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: 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 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-2024-34581, organizations should: 1) Audit their use of XMLDsig implementations to identify those based on version 1.0 or lacking SSRF protections. 2) Upgrade to XMLDsig versions 1.1 or 2.0 where possible, which include best practice guidance for SSRF mitigation. 3) Implement strict input validation and allowlisting on URIs used in RetrievalMethod elements to prevent access to unauthorized or internal resources. 4) Employ network-level controls such as firewall rules or proxy restrictions to limit outbound requests initiated by XML signature processing components. 5) Monitor logs for unusual or unexpected outbound requests triggered by XML signature validation processes. 6) Consider disabling RetrievalMethod URI dereferencing if not strictly necessary for application functionality. 7) Engage with vendors or maintainers of XML signature libraries to ensure patches or configuration options addressing SSRF risks are applied. 8) Conduct penetration testing focused on SSRF vectors related to XML signature processing to validate defenses. These steps go beyond generic advice by focusing on the specific SSRF vector introduced by RetrievalMethod URIs and the unique context of XMLDsig processing.

Description

The W3C XML Signature Syntax and Processing (XMLDsig) specification, starting with 1.0, was originally published with a "RetrievalMethod is a URI ... that may be used to obtain key and/or certificate information" statement and no accompanying information about SSRF risks, and this may have contributed to vulnerable implementations such as those discussed in CVE-2023-36661 and CVE-2024-21893. NOTE: this was mitigated in 1.1 and 2.0 via a directly referenced Best Practices document that calls on implementers to be wary of SSRF.

Impact

The potential impact of CVE-2024-34581 is significant for organizations relying on XMLDsig 1.0 or vulnerable implementations that process RetrievalMethod URIs without SSRF protections. Exploitation could allow attackers to induce servers to make unauthorized requests to internal or external systems, potentially leading to information disclosure (confidentiality impact), manipulation of cryptographic validation processes (integrity impact), or denial of service conditions (availability impact). This could facilitate lateral movement within internal networks, exposure of sensitive key or certificate data, or disruption of critical services that depend on XML signature validation. Given the widespread use of XML signatures in web services, document signing, and secure communications, organizations across industries such as finance, government, healthcare, and technology could be affected. The lack of authentication and user interaction requirements lowers the barrier for attackers to exploit this vulnerability remotely. Although no known exploits are currently active, the vulnerability’s characteristics make it a credible threat that could be weaponized if discovered by adversaries.

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