VulnerabilityPublished 20 Mar 2025Updated 15 Oct 2025

CVE-2024-9000: lunary-ai/lunary · Missing Authorization

Affects lunary-ai/lunarySource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.1 High : upgrade to 1.4.26 soon.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.0 base score

7.1High

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

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 45% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.4.26

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
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: 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: 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: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to 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 20 Mar 2025
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

Upgrade lunary-ai/lunary to 1.4.26.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHublunary-ai/lunary`pkg:github/lunary-ai/lunary`Other threats	Affected <1.4.26	Fixed in 1.4.26

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

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2024-9000, organizations should immediately upgrade lunary-ai/lunary to version 1.4.26 or later where the vulnerability is patched. If upgrading is not immediately feasible, implement strict access controls to limit who can authenticate and access the checklists.post() endpoint, ideally restricting it to trusted administrators or service accounts. Employ application-layer firewalls or API gateways to monitor and block unauthorized modification attempts. Implement logging and alerting on checklist creation and modification activities to detect suspicious behavior. Additionally, validate and enforce uniqueness of the slug field at the application or database level to prevent overwriting existing checklists. Conduct regular audits of checklist data integrity and review user permissions to minimize the risk of insider exploitation. Finally, educate users about the risks of credential compromise and enforce strong authentication mechanisms such as multi-factor authentication to reduce the likelihood of unauthorized access.

Description

In lunary-ai/lunary before version 1.4.26, the checklists.post() endpoint allows users to create or modify checklists without validating whether the user has proper permissions. This missing access control permits unauthorized users to create checklists, bypassing intended permission checks. Additionally, the endpoint does not validate the uniqueness of the slug field when creating a new checklist, allowing an attacker to spoof existing checklists by reusing the slug of an already-existing checklist. This can lead to significant data integrity issues, as legitimate checklists can be replaced with malicious or altered data.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2024-9000 can be substantial, especially for those relying on lunary-ai/lunary for operational workflows, project management, or compliance tracking. Unauthorized creation or modification of checklists can lead to misinformation, disruption of business processes, and potential compliance violations if checklists are used for audit or regulatory purposes. The ability to spoof existing checklists by slug reuse further exacerbates the risk by allowing attackers to replace legitimate data with malicious or misleading content, undermining data integrity and trust. This could result in erroneous decision-making, operational delays, or exposure to further attacks if malicious data is used as a vector. While the vulnerability requires some level of authentication, insider threats or compromised accounts could easily exploit it. The absence of availability impact reduces the risk of denial-of-service, but the integrity compromise alone is critical. Organizations in sectors such as finance, healthcare, manufacturing, and government—where checklist accuracy is vital—are particularly at risk.

CWE-862Missing Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #4OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
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)
Attack patterns
Exploitation of Thunderbolt Protection Flaws (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, 13:08 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-862

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats