CVE-2024-45191VulnerabilityPublished 22 Aug 2024Updated 10 Sep 2024

CVE-2024-45191: olm · n/a

Affects olmSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium · end of life, no fix coming : replace or isolate olm; no fix will be released.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 08:30 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 39% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: None coming – the product is end of life

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
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: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
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 22 Aug 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

No fix will be released: olm is end of life. Replace it, or isolate it from untrusted networks until you can.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubmatrix-org/olm`pkg:github/matrix-org/olm`Other threats	Affected <=3.2.16	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

Organizations should first identify any use of libolm versions through 3.2.16 within their environments, particularly in Matrix protocol implementations. Since the affected versions are no longer supported and no official patches exist, the primary mitigation is to upgrade to a supported version of libolm that does not use vulnerable AES S-box lookup tables or employs constant-time cryptographic implementations. If upgrading is not immediately feasible, organizations should isolate affected systems from untrusted networks to reduce exposure to remote attackers. Employing network segmentation and strict access controls can limit attacker access to vulnerable components. Additionally, monitoring for unusual timing analysis attempts or side-channel attack indicators may help detect exploitation attempts. Developers should consider refactoring cryptographic code to use constant-time implementations that avoid lookup tables susceptible to cache-timing attacks. Finally, organizations should maintain awareness of updates from the libolm maintainers or Matrix community for any future patches or advisories.

Description

An issue was discovered in Matrix libolm through 3.2.16. The AES implementation is vulnerable to cache-timing attacks due to use of S-boxes. This is related to software that uses a lookup table for the SubWord step. This refers to the libolm implementation of Olm. NOTE: This vulnerability only affects products that are no longer supported by the maintainer.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2024-45191 is on the integrity of encrypted communications using the affected versions of libolm. Attackers exploiting this vulnerability could potentially recover cryptographic keys or manipulate encrypted messages, undermining trust in the confidentiality and authenticity of communications. While confidentiality is not directly compromised by this attack, the ability to affect integrity can lead to message forgery or replay attacks. The vulnerability requires network access and low privileges, which broadens the potential attack surface. However, the high complexity of exploitation and the need for precise timing measurements limit the likelihood of widespread exploitation. Since the vulnerability affects unsupported legacy software, organizations continuing to use these versions face increased risk due to the absence of official patches. This could impact organizations relying on Matrix-based secure messaging solutions, especially those in sectors requiring strong message integrity such as government, finance, and critical infrastructure. The lack of known exploits in the wild reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate the potential for future attacks as adversaries develop more sophisticated side-channel techniques.

CWE-208Observable Timing Discrepancy (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
Two separate operations in a product require different amounts of time to complete, in a way that is observable to an actor and reveals security-relevant information about the state of the product, such as whether a particular operation was successful or not.
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
Cross-Domain Search Timing (opens in a new tab)
Application Fingerprinting (opens in a new tab)
System Footprinting (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, 06:54 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-208

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats