CVE-2024-39846VulnerabilityPublished 29 Jun 2024Updated 25 Nov 2024

CVE-2024-39846: NewPass · n/a

Affects NewPassSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 3.5 Low : upgrade to 1.2.0 when convenient.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

3.5Low

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 8% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.2.0

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

Attack Vector: Adjacent
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: None
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: 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: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 29 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 2026-10-25.

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 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

Upgrade 6eero/NewPass to 1.2.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHub6eero/NewPass`pkg:github/6eero/NewPass`Other threats	Affected <1.2.0	Fixed in 1.2.0

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

AI-suggested

To mitigate this vulnerability, organizations should upgrade NewPass to version 1.2.0 or later where passwords are properly hashed rather than stored in plaintext. Until an upgrade is possible, enforce strict access controls to limit local access to trusted users only and implement endpoint security measures to detect and prevent unauthorized memory access or code execution. Employ memory protection techniques such as Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR) and Data Execution Prevention (DEP) to reduce the risk of memory scraping. Regularly audit and monitor systems for suspicious activity indicative of memory inspection or credential theft attempts. Additionally, consider using hardware-based security modules or trusted execution environments to isolate sensitive operations. Educate users and administrators about the risks of plaintext password storage and the importance of secure password management practices. Finally, maintain up-to-date backups and incident response plans to quickly respond to any potential compromise.

Description

NewPass before 1.2.0 stores passwords (rather than password hashes) directly, which makes it easier to obtain unauthorized access to sensitive information. NOTE: in each case, data at rest is encrypted, but is decrypted within process memory during use.

Impact

The primary impact of this vulnerability is the potential unauthorized disclosure of user passwords, which can lead to credential compromise and subsequent unauthorized access to systems or services protected by those credentials. Since passwords are stored in plaintext and decrypted in memory, attackers with local access or the ability to perform memory inspection can extract these passwords. This could facilitate lateral movement within an organization, privilege escalation, or data breaches if attackers leverage the stolen credentials. However, the low CVSS score and requirement for local privileges limit the scope and ease of exploitation. Organizations relying on NewPass for password management may face increased risk of credential theft, especially if endpoint security is weak or if attackers have already gained some foothold. The vulnerability does not affect system integrity or availability directly but compromises confidentiality, which can have cascading effects on overall security posture.

CWE-312Cleartext Storage of Sensitive Information (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product stores sensitive information in cleartext within a resource that might be accessible to another control sphere.
Implementation · System Configuration · Operation
When storing data in the cloud (e.g., S3 buckets, Azure blobs, Google Cloud Storage, etc.), use the provider's controls to encrypt the data at rest.
Implementation · System Configuration · Operation
In some systems/environments such as cloud, the use of "double encryption" (at both the software and hardware layer) might be required, and the developer might be solely responsible for both layers, instead of shared responsibility with the administrator of the broader system/environment.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.1.6 (opens in a new tab)
V8.2.3 (opens in a new tab)
V8.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Retrieve Embedded Sensitive Data (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, 05:57 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-312

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats