VulnerabilityPublished 22 Jul 2024Updated 2 Aug 2024

CVE-2024-41880: Veilid · Observable Discrepancy

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium · fixed in 0.3.4 : update Veilid when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

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.
Affects: Veilid before 0.3.4
Patch: Available – fixed in 0.3.4

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
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: 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: 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 22 Jul 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-2024-41880, organizations should upgrade veilid-core to version 0.3.4 or later, where the vulnerability has been addressed. Until the upgrade is applied, network administrators should monitor and restrict access to the Veilid protocol's ping function where possible, using network segmentation or firewall rules to limit exposure to untrusted networks. Implementing anomaly detection to identify unusual ping traffic patterns may help detect exploitation attempts. Additionally, reviewing and hardening routing policies and configurations within Veilid deployments can reduce the impact of potential misuse. Developers integrating veilid-core should ensure they use the latest library versions and follow secure coding practices to avoid introducing similar protocol misuse vulnerabilities. Maintaining up-to-date threat intelligence and applying security patches promptly is critical to preserving the confidentiality guarantees of the Veilid protocol.

Description

In veilid-core in Veilid before 0.3.4, the protocol's ping function can be misused in a way that decreases the effectiveness of safety and private routes.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2024-41880 is a reduction in the confidentiality of communications routed via veilid-core. By exploiting the ping function misuse, attackers can potentially infer or disrupt private routing paths, leading to exposure of sensitive routing information. This can compromise the privacy assurances of applications or systems relying on Veilid for secure communications. While the vulnerability does not affect data integrity or system availability, the leakage or weakening of private routes can facilitate further reconnaissance or targeted attacks. Organizations using veilid-core in privacy-critical applications, such as secure messaging, decentralized networks, or privacy-focused routing services, face increased risk of information exposure. The ease of exploitation (no authentication or user interaction required) and network accessibility increase the threat surface. However, the absence of known exploits in the wild and the medium CVSS score suggest a moderate but notable risk that should be addressed promptly to maintain trust in the protocol's privacy features.

CWE-203Observable Discrepancy (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product behaves differently or sends different responses under different circumstances in a way that is observable to an unauthorized actor.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area.
Implementation
Ensure that error messages only contain minimal details that are useful to the intended audience and no one else. The messages need to strike the balance between being too cryptic (which can confuse users) or being too detailed (which may reveal more than intended).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Error Handling (opens in a new tab)
Logging (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.4 (opens in a new tab)
V14.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
V7.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Black Box Reverse Engineering (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

gitlab.com/veilid/veilid/-/issues/395 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 28 Feb 2026, 05:53 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-203

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats