VulnerabilityPublished 25 Aug 2024Updated 6 Oct 2025

CVE-2024-45244: Hyperledger Fabric · Authentication Bypass by Capture-replay

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 16:39 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 47% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: Low
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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on 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 25 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 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-2024-45244, organizations should first identify all deployments running affected versions of Hyperledger Fabric (up to 3.0.0 and 2.5.x through 2.5.9). In the interim, administrators can implement custom validation logic or middleware to enforce strict timestamp checks on incoming requests, ensuring they fall within an acceptable time window relative to the system clock. Network-level controls such as rate limiting and anomaly detection can help identify and block replay attempts. Additionally, organizations should review and tighten blockchain network policies, including endorsement and validation policies, to reduce the risk of unauthorized transaction acceptance. Logging and monitoring should be enhanced to detect suspicious transaction patterns or repeated requests with stale timestamps. Finally, organizations should plan for timely upgrades to patched versions once available and conduct thorough testing to ensure the integrity of blockchain operations is restored.

Description

Hyperledger Fabric through 3.0.0 and 2.5.x through 2.5.9 do not verify that a request has a timestamp within the expected time window.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2024-45244 centers on the potential compromise of transaction integrity within blockchain networks using affected Hyperledger Fabric versions. This could lead to replay attacks where old or manipulated requests are accepted as valid, resulting in unauthorized or inconsistent ledger states. Such integrity violations can erode trust in blockchain-based systems, disrupt business processes, and cause financial or reputational damage. Since Hyperledger Fabric is often used in sectors like finance, supply chain, healthcare, and government services, the ripple effects could be significant if transaction histories are corrupted or manipulated. The vulnerability does not affect confidentiality or availability directly, but the integrity impact alone can have serious consequences for compliance with regulations such as GDPR, which require data accuracy and integrity. The absence of required authentication or user interaction for exploitation increases the risk, as attackers can attempt exploitation remotely over the network. European organizations that have integrated Hyperledger Fabric into their critical infrastructure or commercial applications should prioritize addressing this vulnerability to maintain operational trust and regulatory compliance.

CWE-294Authentication Bypass by Capture-replay (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
A capture-replay flaw exists when the design of the product makes it possible for a malicious user to sniff network traffic and bypass authentication by replaying it to the server in question to the same effect as the original message (or with minor changes).
Architecture and Design
Utilize some sequence or time stamping functionality along with a checksum which takes this into account in order to ensure that messages can be parsed only once.
Architecture and Design
Since any attacker who can listen to traffic can see sequence numbers, it is necessary to sign messages with some kind of cryptography to ensure that sequence numbers are not simply doctored along with content.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V2.8.5 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.4 (opens in a new tab)
V9.2.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Session Sidejacking (opens in a new tab)
Kerberoasting (opens in a new tab)
Remote Services with Stolen Credentials (opens in a new tab)
Windows Admin Shares with Stolen Credentials (opens in a new tab)
Reusing Session IDs (aka Session Replay) (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

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 6 Oct 2025, 14:38 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-294

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats