CVE-2024-52871VulnerabilityPublished 17 Nov 2024Updated 18 Nov 2024

CVE-2024-52871: flagsmith · n/a

Affects flagsmithSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High : upgrade to 2.134.1 soon.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 35% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2.134.1

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
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: 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: 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 17 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 2026-10-25.

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 flagsmith/flagsmith to 2.134.1.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubflagsmith/flagsmith`pkg:github/flagsmith/flagsmith`Other threats	Affected <2.134.1	Fixed in 2.134.1

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

AI-suggested

Organizations using Flagsmith should upgrade to version 2.134.1 or later as soon as it becomes available to address this vulnerability. If you cannot patch yet, administrators should consider implementing additional access controls at the network or application layer to restrict registration endpoints, such as IP whitelisting or web application firewalls (WAFs) with rules to detect and block unauthorized registration attempts. Monitoring registration logs for unusual activity or spikes in new accounts can help detect exploitation attempts early. If possible, temporarily disabling public registration or enforcing manual approval workflows can reduce risk. Additionally, reviewing and tightening related authentication and authorization policies within Flagsmith deployments can limit the impact of unauthorized accounts. Organizations should also stay informed via Flagsmith’s official security advisories for any updates or patches.

Description

In Flagsmith before 2.134.1, it is possible to bypass the ALLOW_REGISTRATION_WITHOUT_INVITE setting.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2024-52871 is unauthorized account creation, which can lead to unauthorized access to the Flagsmith platform. This can compromise confidentiality by exposing sensitive feature flag configurations or internal application states controlled via Flagsmith. Attackers could leverage unauthorized accounts to gather intelligence, perform privilege escalation if other vulnerabilities exist, or disrupt normal feature flag operations indirectly. For organizations relying on Flagsmith for feature management, this could result in exposure of sensitive business logic, unauthorized feature toggling, or data leakage. Since the vulnerability does not affect integrity or availability directly, the immediate risk is limited to unauthorized access. However, the ease of exploitation and lack of authentication requirements increase the likelihood of abuse, especially in environments where registration controls are critical. This could be particularly impactful in SaaS environments or multi-tenant deployments where unauthorized users gaining access could affect multiple customers or services.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 26 Feb 2026, 01:39 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats