VulnerabilityPublished 30 Apr 2024Updated 25 Feb 2026

CVE-2024-4369: an Environment Variable · Cleartext Storage of Sensitive Information

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.8 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.8Medium

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

EPSS: 0.6% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 52% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: High
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: High
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: High: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable component that could affect component-wide settings and files.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
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: 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 30 Apr 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-2024-4369, organizations should implement the following specific measures: 1) Restrict access to pod metadata and environment variables in the openshift-image-registry namespace by enforcing strict Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) policies, limiting who can view pod definitions and environment variables. 2) Rotate the AZURE_CLIENT_SECRET credentials immediately upon discovery of potential exposure to invalidate any compromised secrets. 3) Avoid storing sensitive credentials in cleartext environment variables; instead, use secure secret management solutions integrated with OpenShift, such as Kubernetes Secrets with encryption at rest and access controls. 4) Monitor audit logs for unusual access patterns to pod metadata or Azure service accounts to detect potential exploitation attempts. 5) Apply any vendor patches or updates addressing this vulnerability as they become available. 6) Conduct regular security reviews of cloud service account permissions to ensure the principle of least privilege is enforced, minimizing the impact if credentials are compromised. 7) Educate administrators on the risks of excessive permissions and the importance of credential confidentiality within the cluster environment.

Description

An information disclosure flaw was found in OpenShift's internal image registry operator. The AZURE_CLIENT_SECRET can be exposed through an environment variable defined in the pod definition, but is limited to Azure environments. An attacker controlling an account that has high enough permissions to obtain pod information from the openshift-image-registry namespace could use this obtained client secret to perform actions as the registry operator's Azure service account.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2024-4369 is the potential compromise of the AZURE_CLIENT_SECRET used by OpenShift's image registry operator, leading to unauthorized access to Azure resources. This can result in significant confidentiality breaches, as the attacker can impersonate the registry operator's Azure service account and perform actions within the Azure environment. Although the vulnerability does not directly affect integrity or availability, the unauthorized use of the Azure service account could lead to further privilege escalation, data exfiltration, or disruption depending on the permissions granted to that account. Organizations with OpenShift clusters deployed on Azure that do not strictly control access to pod metadata are at risk. The requirement for high privileges to access pod information limits the attack surface but does not eliminate risk, especially in environments with multiple administrators or compromised accounts. The vulnerability could be leveraged as a stepping stone for more extensive attacks within cloud infrastructure, making it critical for organizations to address promptly.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…