VulnerabilityPublished 13 Aug 2024

CVE-2024-37015: aws · Improper Validation of Certificate with Host Mismatch

Affects awsSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.4 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.4High

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

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

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
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: 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: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
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: 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 13 Aug 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubadacore/aws`pkg:github/adacore/aws`Other threats	Affected =20.0	Fixed in–

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2024-37015, organizations should first verify if Ada Web Server 20.0 is configured to use SSL for outbound connections and consider disabling SSL if not strictly necessary. If SSL is required, implement strict hostname validation manually if the server configuration does not support it natively. Network-level mitigations include enforcing strict network segmentation and using VPNs or secure tunnels to reduce the risk of MitM attacks. Monitoring network traffic for unusual SSL/TLS certificates or anomalies can help detect exploitation attempts. Organizations should also engage with Ada Web Server vendors or maintainers to obtain patches or updates addressing this vulnerability. Until a patch is available, consider deploying web application firewalls (WAFs) or SSL/TLS interception detection tools to identify and block suspicious connections. Regular security audits and penetration testing focusing on SSL/TLS configurations are recommended to ensure no other related weaknesses exist.

Description

An issue was discovered in Ada Web Server 20.0. When configured to use SSL (which is not the default setting), the SSL/TLS used to establish connections to external services is done without proper hostname validation. This is exploitable by man-in-the-middle attackers.

Impact

This vulnerability can lead to significant data confidentiality and integrity breaches for organizations using Ada Web Server 20.0 with SSL enabled for external connections. A successful MitM attack could allow attackers to eavesdrop on sensitive information, such as authentication tokens, API keys, or confidential data transmitted to external services. Additionally, attackers could manipulate the data in transit, potentially injecting malicious payloads or altering responses, which could lead to further compromise or operational disruption. Although availability is not directly impacted, the loss of trust in the integrity and confidentiality of communications can have severe reputational and compliance consequences. Organizations in sectors handling sensitive data, such as finance, healthcare, and government, are particularly at risk. The requirement for network-level MitM access limits the ease of exploitation but does not eliminate the threat, especially in environments with exposed or poorly segmented networks.

CWE-297Improper Validation of Certificate with Host Mismatch (opens in a new tab)
Variant weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product communicates with a host that provides a certificate, but the product does not properly ensure that the certificate is actually associated with that host.
Architecture and Design
Fully check the hostname of the certificate and provide the user with adequate information about the nature of the problem and how to proceed.
Implementation
If certificate pinning is being used, ensure that all relevant properties of the certificate are fully validated before the certificate is pinned, including the hostname.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.14.1 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.5 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.4 (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

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 26 Feb 2026, 05:10 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-297

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats