VulnerabilityPublished 25 Apr 2024Updated 20 Nov 2025

CVE-2024-3622: Plaintext Storage of a Password

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.8 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.8High

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

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 44% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
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: 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: 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: 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 25 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 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-2024-3622, organizations should immediately avoid deploying Quay using mirror-registry with default configuration templates containing plaintext secrets. They must generate and configure unique, strong secret keys for each Quay instance, ensuring these secrets are stored securely and not embedded in plaintext within configuration files. Implement strict access controls and encryption for configuration management. Regularly audit deployed configurations to detect any use of default or weak secrets. Additionally, monitor session activities for anomalies that may indicate forged cookies or unauthorized access. Applying any vendor patches or updates addressing this vulnerability as soon as they become available is critical. Finally, consider network segmentation and limiting access to the Quay registry to trusted users and systems to reduce attack surface.

Description

A flaw was found when using mirror-registry to install Quay. It uses a default secret, which is stored in plain-text format in one of the configuration template files. This issue may lead to all instances of Quay deployed using mirror-registry to have the same secret key. This flaw allows a malicious actor to craft session cookies and as a consequence, it may lead to gaining access to the affected Quay instance.

Impact

The impact of CVE-2024-3622 is substantial for organizations using Quay registries deployed through mirror-registry. Attackers can gain unauthorized access to the container registry, which may contain sensitive container images, credentials, and deployment artifacts. This unauthorized access can lead to data exfiltration, tampering with container images, insertion of malicious code, and disruption of containerized application deployments. The ability to forge session cookies undermines authentication and session management, increasing the risk of privilege escalation and lateral movement within the network. Given the widespread use of container registries in DevOps pipelines, this vulnerability could disrupt software supply chains and impact business continuity. Organizations relying on Quay for container image management must consider this a critical security risk.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…