CVE-2024-6126VulnerabilityPublished 3 Jul 2024Updated 21 Nov 2025

CVE-2024-6126: Uncontrolled Resource Consumption

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 3.2 Low.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 07:57 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

3.2Low

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 19% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: None
Availability: Low

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Local: The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Either: the attacker exploits the vulnerability by accessing the target system locally (e.g., keyboard, console), or remotely (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., tricking a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
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: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 3 Jul 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

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2024-6126, organizations should first assess whether the pam_env's user_readenv option is enabled in their cockpit configurations. If enabled, consider disabling this option until a patch is available. Restrict cockpit access to trusted and minimal user groups to reduce the risk of exploitation by authenticated users. Implement strong authentication mechanisms and monitor user activities within cockpit to detect any abnormal process termination attempts. Keep the system and cockpit package updated with the latest security patches from the vendor. If possible, isolate cockpit management interfaces behind firewalls or VPNs to limit exposure. Additionally, review and harden PAM configurations to ensure environment variables are handled securely. Regularly audit system logs for signs of process termination anomalies that could indicate exploitation attempts.

Description

A flaw was found in the cockpit package. This flaw allows an authenticated user to kill any process when enabling the pam_env's user_readenv option, which leads to a denial of service (DoS) attack.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2024-6126 is a denial of service condition caused by an authenticated user killing arbitrary processes, which can disrupt system availability. This can affect server management operations, potentially leading to downtime or degraded performance of critical services managed via cockpit. Since the vulnerability requires authentication and user interaction, the risk is somewhat mitigated in environments with strict access controls. However, in multi-tenant or shared environments where multiple users have cockpit access, an insider or compromised user account could exploit this flaw to disrupt operations. The lack of confidentiality or integrity impact limits the risk to data breaches or unauthorized data modification. The overall impact is moderate for organizations relying heavily on cockpit for system management, especially those with less restrictive user permissions. No known active exploitation reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate the need for mitigation.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…