VulnerabilityPublished 8 Oct 2024Updated 20 Nov 2025

CVE-2024-9620: Cleartext Transmission

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 4% 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:L/I:N/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
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: 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: 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 8 Oct 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

Monitor Red Hat and Ansible vendor advisories for official patches addressing CVE-2024-9620 and apply them promptly once available.
Implement network-level encryption such as TLS or VPN tunnels to protect data in transit between EDA and AAP components until a native fix is released.
Encrypt sensitive data at rest within EDA and AAP databases using disk encryption or database-level encryption features to prevent plaintext exposure.
Restrict network access to EDA and AAP components using firewalls, segmentation, and zero-trust principles to limit attacker opportunities for sniffing or unauthorized access.
Conduct regular audits of automation platform configurations and stored data to identify and remediate any plaintext sensitive information.
Employ strong access controls and monitoring on systems hosting EDA and AAP to detect and prevent unauthorized system-level access.
Educate IT and security teams on the risks of unencrypted automation data and enforce secure coding and deployment practices for automation workflows.

Description

A flaw was found in Event-Driven Automation (EDA) in Ansible Automation Platform (AAP), which lacks encryption of sensitive information. An attacker with network access could exploit this vulnerability by sniffing the plaintext data transmitted between the EDA and AAP. An attacker with system access could exploit this vulnerability by reading the plaintext data stored in EDA and AAP databases.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2024-9620 is the potential exposure of sensitive information used in automation workflows, including credentials, configuration data, and operational commands. This exposure can lead to unauthorized access to critical systems if attackers leverage intercepted data. Organizations relying on Ansible Automation Platform for managing infrastructure, deployments, and security configurations face increased risk of data breaches and lateral movement within their networks. The vulnerability affects confidentiality but does not compromise data integrity or system availability. Given the widespread adoption of Ansible in enterprise environments, the vulnerability could have broad implications, especially for organizations with sensitive or regulated data. Attackers exploiting this flaw could gain insights into internal automation processes, facilitating further attacks or espionage. The lack of encryption also violates compliance requirements in many industries, potentially leading to regulatory penalties.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…