CVE-2024-5714VulnerabilityPublished 27 Jun 2024Updated 15 Oct 2025

CVE-2024-5714: lunary-ai/lunary · Incorrect Authorization

Affects lunary-ai/lunarySource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.4 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.0 base score

7.4High

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

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 43% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
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: 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: 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: 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 27 Jun 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 2026-10-26.

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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHublunary-ai/lunary`pkg:github/lunary-ai/lunary`Other threats	Affected =1.2.4	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 immediately audit and restrict team management permissions to trusted personnel only, minimizing the number of users who can manipulate project identifiers. Implement strict input validation and enforce backend checks to ensure project IDs in API requests correspond to the user's organization. Developers should correct the attribute naming inconsistency from 'org_id' to 'orgId' to enable proper organization validation. Until an official patch is released, consider deploying Web Application Firewall (WAF) rules to detect and block suspicious requests manipulating project IDs or cross-organization invitations. Monitor API logs for anomalous activity involving project membership changes or invitations outside expected organizational boundaries. Engage with lunary-ai to obtain or request a security patch and apply it promptly once available. Additionally, conduct security awareness training for team managers about the risks of improper project membership changes and encourage reporting of suspicious behavior.

Description

In lunary-ai/lunary version 1.2.4, an improper access control vulnerability allows members with team management permissions to manipulate project identifiers in requests, enabling them to invite users to projects in other organizations, change members to projects in other organizations with escalated privileges, and change members from other organizations to their own or other projects, also with escalated privileges. This vulnerability is due to the backend's failure to validate project identifiers against the current user's organization ID and projects belonging to it, as well as a misconfiguration in attribute naming (`org_id` should be `orgId`) that prevents proper user organization validation. As a result, attackers can cause inconsistencies on the platform for affected users and organizations, including unauthorized privilege escalation. The issue is present in the backend API endpoints for user invitation and modification, specifically in the handling of project IDs in requests.

Impact

For European organizations using lunary-ai/lunary, this vulnerability poses a significant risk of unauthorized access and privilege escalation across organizational boundaries. Attackers with team management permissions could manipulate project memberships and user invitations to gain access to sensitive project data belonging to other organizations, potentially leading to data leakage, intellectual property theft, or sabotage. The cross-organization nature of the flaw could also cause data integrity issues and operational confusion, undermining trust in collaboration platforms. Given the high confidentiality and integrity impact, organizations handling sensitive or regulated data (e.g., GDPR-protected personal data, proprietary research, or critical infrastructure projects) face increased compliance and reputational risks. The network-exploitable nature means attackers can attempt exploitation remotely, increasing the threat surface. Although no known exploits exist yet, the vulnerability should be treated as urgent to prevent potential abuse.

CWE-863Incorrect Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #17OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.
Architecture and Design
Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
V13.4.2 (opens in a new tab)
V7.2.2 (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 15 Oct 2025, 13:32 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-863

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats