VulnerabilityPublished 25 Apr 2024Updated 20 Nov 2025

CVE-2024-3624: Plaintext Storage of a Password

Source CVE Database V5

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: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 27% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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

Attack Vector: Adjacent: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared physical (e.g., Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11) or logical (e.g., local IP subnet) network, or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN to an administrative network zone).
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: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

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-2024-3624, organizations should immediately audit access controls to the mirror-registry's config.yaml file, ensuring only authorized personnel and processes can read it. Implement strict file system permissions and consider isolating the registry environment to limit exposure. Until an official patch is released, manually remove or encrypt plaintext passwords in configuration files, leveraging secret management solutions such as HashiCorp Vault, Kubernetes Secrets, or similar tools to inject credentials securely at runtime. Monitor logs and network traffic for suspicious access patterns to the registry and database. Employ network segmentation to restrict access to the database from untrusted sources. Regularly rotate database credentials and update configurations accordingly. Additionally, keep abreast of vendor advisories for patches or updates addressing this vulnerability and apply them promptly once available. Conduct security training to raise awareness about secure credential handling among DevOps and security teams.

Description

A flaw was found in how Quay's database is stored in plain-text in mirror-registry on the jinja's config.yaml file. This flaw allows a malicious actor with access to this file to gain access to Quay's database.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2024-3624 is the compromise of confidentiality and integrity of Quay's database. An attacker who accesses the plaintext password can connect to the database, potentially extracting sensitive data, modifying records, or escalating privileges within the environment. This can lead to data breaches, unauthorized changes to container images or metadata, and disruption of supply chain security. Although availability is not directly affected, the downstream effects of data manipulation or exposure can cause operational disruptions and loss of trust. Organizations relying on Quay for container image management, especially in production or sensitive environments, face significant risk of data compromise and potential regulatory consequences. The vulnerability's requirement for some level of access means that perimeter defenses and internal access controls are critical to prevent exploitation. The absence of known exploits reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate the threat, as attackers may develop exploits given the publicly available details.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…