VulnerabilityPublished 25 Apr 2024Updated 20 Nov 2025

CVE-2024-3625: 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-2024-3625, organizations should immediately audit and restrict access permissions on the mirror-registry's config.yaml file to ensure only authorized system processes and administrators can read it. Employ file system access controls (e.g., Linux file permissions, SELinux/AppArmor policies) to prevent unauthorized local or network users from accessing sensitive configuration files. Encrypt sensitive credentials stored in configuration files or use secret management solutions (e.g., HashiCorp Vault, Kubernetes Secrets) to avoid plaintext storage. Monitor access logs for unusual or unauthorized attempts to read configuration files or connect to Redis. Network segmentation should isolate Redis instances, limiting access to trusted hosts only. Apply any patches or updates released by Quay maintainers promptly once available. Additionally, consider rotating Redis passwords and credentials after remediation to invalidate any potentially compromised secrets. Regular security reviews of container registry infrastructure and configuration management practices are recommended to prevent similar issues.

Description

A flaw was found in Quay, where Quay's database is stored in plain text in mirror-registry on Jinja's config.yaml file. This issue leaves the possibility of a malicious actor with access to this file to gain access to Quay's Redis instance.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2024-3625 is unauthorized access to Quay's Redis instance due to exposure of plaintext credentials. This can lead to confidentiality breaches where sensitive data cached or stored in Redis is accessed by unauthorized parties. Integrity is also at risk, as attackers could modify or inject malicious data into Redis, potentially disrupting container image management, deployment workflows, or security policies enforced via Quay. While availability is not directly impacted, the compromise of Redis could indirectly affect service reliability or trustworthiness. Organizations relying on Quay for container image storage and distribution may face operational disruptions, data leakage, or further lateral movement within their infrastructure if attackers leverage this vulnerability. The requirement for low privileges and no user interaction lowers the barrier for exploitation once access to the config.yaml file is obtained, making it a significant risk especially in environments with weak file permission controls or insider threats.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…