VulnerabilityPublished 2 Feb 2026

CVE-2024-4147: lunary-ai/lunary · Insufficient Granularity of Access Control

Affects lunary-ai/lunarySource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 12:54 UTC

CVSS 3.0 base score

7.5High

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 37% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: None
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: 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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 2 Feb 2026
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
lunary-ailunary-ai/lunary	Affected ≥ unspecified, < 1.2.25	Fixed in–
GitHublunary-ai/lunary`pkg:github/lunary-ai/lunary`Other threats	Affected =1.2.13	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-2024-4147, European organizations using lunary-ai/lunary should: 1) Immediately audit current access control policies and verify prompt ownership validation mechanisms within the application. 2) Restrict deletion permissions to the minimum necessary users and roles, applying the principle of least privilege. 3) Implement network segmentation and access controls to limit exposure of the lunary-ai/lunary service to trusted users only. 4) Monitor and log prompt deletion activities to detect anomalous or unauthorized deletions promptly. 5) Engage with the vendor or community to obtain patches or updates that address the ownership validation flaw as soon as they become available. 6) Consider implementing compensating controls such as application-layer proxies or API gateways that enforce ownership checks externally until a patch is applied. 7) Educate users about the risks of ID manipulation and enforce secure coding practices if custom integrations exist. These targeted steps go beyond generic advice by focusing on ownership validation, permission minimization, and proactive monitoring tailored to this specific vulnerability.

Description

In lunary-ai/lunary version 1.2.13, an insufficient granularity of access control vulnerability allows users to delete prompts created in other organizations through ID manipulation. The vulnerability stems from the application's failure to validate the ownership of the prompt before deletion, only checking if the user has permissions to delete such resources without verifying if it belongs to the user's project or organization. As a result, users can remove prompts not owned by their organization or project, leading to legitimate users being unable to access the removed prompts and causing information inconsistencies.

Impact

For European organizations, the primary impact of this vulnerability is operational disruption due to unauthorized deletion of AI prompts shared within or across organizational boundaries. This can lead to loss of critical AI training or inference data, interrupting AI workflows and potentially causing delays or errors in AI-driven decision-making processes. Organizations in sectors relying heavily on AI collaboration platforms—such as finance, healthcare, and manufacturing—may experience degraded service availability and reduced productivity. Although confidentiality and integrity are not directly affected, the inability to access legitimate prompts can undermine trust in the platform and complicate compliance with data governance policies. Additionally, the cross-organizational nature of the flaw raises concerns about multi-tenant environments and data segregation, which are critical for compliance with European data protection regulations like GDPR. The lack of authentication requirements for exploitation increases the risk surface, especially in environments where internal users or external attackers can access the platform network. Overall, the vulnerability poses a significant risk to the continuity and reliability of AI services within European enterprises.

Summary

CVE-2024-4147 is an access control vulnerability classified under CWE-1220 affecting lunary-ai/lunary version 1.2.13. The root cause is insufficient granularity in access control checks during prompt deletion operations. Specifically, the application verifies only whether a user has generic permission to delete prompts but neglects to confirm if the prompt belongs to the user's own project or organization. This logical flaw allows an attacker with legitimate deletion permissions within their own scope to manipulate prompt identifiers and delete prompts owned by other organizations. The vulnerability does not require authentication or user interaction, making it remotely exploitable over the network. The impact is primarily on availability, as unauthorized deletions cause legitimate users to lose access to their prompts, potentially disrupting workflows and causing data inconsistencies. While confidentiality and integrity are not directly compromised, the loss of data availability can have significant operational consequences. The CVSS 3.0 score is 7.5 (high), reflecting the ease of exploitation and the high impact on availability. No patches or known exploits are currently documented, indicating a window of exposure for affected users. Organizations relying on lunary-ai/lunary for AI prompt management should assess their exposure and implement controls to prevent unauthorized deletions.

CWE-1220Insufficient Granularity of Access Control (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product implements access controls via a policy or other feature with the intention to disable or restrict accesses (reads and/or writes) to assets in a system from untrusted agents. However, implemented access controls lack required granularity, which renders the control policy too broad because it allows accesses from unauthorized agents to the security-sensitive assets.
Architecture and Design · Implementation · Testing
Access-control-policy protections must be reviewed for design inconsistency and common weaknesses.; Access-control-policy definition and programming flow must be tested in pre-silicon, post-silicon testing.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Docker Security (opens in a new tab)
Third Party Javascript Management (opens in a new tab)
Virtual Patching (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.4.4 (opens in a new tab)
V1.4.5 (opens in a new tab)
V1.10.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs (opens in a new tab)
Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels (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 2 Feb 2026, 11:15 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-1220

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats