VulnerabilityPublished 7 Nov 2024

CVE-2024-43434: moodle · Csrf Risk in Feedback Non-respondents Report

Affects moodleSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.1 High · fixed in 4.4.2 : patch moodle soon.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 08:30 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.1High

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

EPSS: 0.6% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 48% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 4.4.2, 4.3.6, 4.2.9 +1

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
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: 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: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
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 7 Nov 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 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 moodle to 4.4.2, 4.3.6, 4.2.9 or 4.1.12.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
moodle	Affected <4.1.12 >=4.2 <4.2.9 >=4.3 <4.3.6 >=4.4 <4.4.2	Fixed in 4.4.2 4.3.6 4.2.9 4.1.12
GitHubmoodle`pkg:github/moodle`Other threats	Affected <4.1.12 >=4.2 <4.2.9 >=4.3 <4.3.6 >=4.4 <4.4.2	Fixed in 4.1.12 4.2.9 4.3.6 4.4.2

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-2024-43434, organizations should immediately upgrade Moodle to a version where the vulnerability is patched once available. If you cannot patch yet, administrators can implement the following specific measures: 1) Disable or restrict access to the bulk message sending feature in the Feedback module for non-administrative users to reduce exposure. 2) Enforce strict Content Security Policy (CSP) headers to limit the ability of attackers to execute malicious scripts that could trigger CSRF attacks. 3) Educate users about the risks of clicking on unsolicited or suspicious links, especially when logged into Moodle. 4) Monitor Moodle logs for unusual bulk messaging activity that could indicate exploitation attempts. 5) Implement additional CSRF protection mechanisms at the web server or application firewall level, such as validating the Referer header or using custom tokens. 6) Regularly audit and review user permissions to ensure only necessary users have access to sensitive modules. These targeted mitigations complement general security best practices and reduce the risk of exploitation until official patches are deployed.

Description

The bulk message sending feature in Moodle's Feedback module's non-respondents report had an incorrect CSRF token check, leading to a CSRF vulnerability.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2024-43434 is unauthorized bulk message sending within Moodle's Feedback module, which can lead to significant confidentiality breaches by exposing sensitive feedback or user data to unintended recipients. Integrity is also compromised, as attackers can manipulate communication by sending fraudulent messages on behalf of legitimate users, potentially damaging trust and disrupting feedback processes. Although availability is not directly affected, the reputational damage and potential misuse of the messaging feature can indirectly impact organizational operations. Educational institutions and organizations relying on Moodle for communication and feedback are at risk of targeted phishing, social engineering, or misinformation campaigns leveraging this vulnerability. Since exploitation requires only user interaction without elevated privileges, the attack surface is broad, increasing the likelihood of successful exploitation if mitigations are not applied promptly. The lack of known exploits in the wild currently reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate the threat, especially as attackers may develop exploits following public disclosure.

CWE-22Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #6OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but the product does not properly neutralize special elements within the pathname that can cause the pathname to resolve to a location that is outside of the restricted directory.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
Architecture and Design
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks…
Implementation · Input Validation
Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Path Traversal (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes and URL Encoding Combined to Bypass Validation Logic (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls (opens in a new tab)
Using Escaped Slashes in Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes in Alternate Encoding (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 28 Feb 2026, 06:28 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-22

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats