CVE-2024-32462VulnerabilityPublished 17 Jun 2024Updated 11 Oct 2026

SUSE · security update for flatpak

Affects SUSESource GCVE Database

Not known to be exploited · patch available : update SUSE when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 07:57 UTC

Severity

Low

Rated by Threat Radar · No CVSS score from NVD or the CNA

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.
Patch: Available

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 17 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
Red Hatredhat/flatpak`pkg:rpm/redhat/flatpak`Other threats	Affected =1.0.9-13.el7_9	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

Patches are available and should be applied to update Flatpak to versions 1.10.9, 1.12.9, 1.14.6, 1.15.8 or later. Additionally, updating xdg-desktop-portal to version 1.18.4 or later mitigates the issue by restricting command creation. Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 users should apply the security update RHSA-2024:3980 and ensure all prior relevant errata are applied. No further action is required beyond applying these official fixes.

Description

Flatpak versions prior to 1.10.9, 1.12.9, 1.14.6, and 1.15.8 contain a vulnerability that allows a malicious or compromised Flatpak application to execute arbitrary code outside its sandbox. This sandbox escape is due to improper handling of the --command argument in the flatpak run command, which can be exploited via the org.freedesktop.portal.Background.RequestBackground interface. The vulnerability is addressed by changes in how arguments are passed to bubblewrap (bwrap) and mitigated in xdg-desktop-portal 1.18.4 by restricting command creation. Patches are available in the specified fixed versions.

CWE-88Improper Neutralization of Argument Delimiters in a Command ('Argument Injection') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product constructs a string for a command to be executed by a separate component in another control sphere, but it does not properly delimit the intended arguments, options, or switches within that command string.
Implementation · Parameterization
Where possible, avoid building a single string that contains the command and its arguments. Some languages or frameworks have functions that support specifying independent arguments, e.g. as an array, which is used to automatically perform the appropriate quoting or escaping while building the command.
Architecture and Design · Input Validation
Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter your product: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, request headers as well as content, URL components, e-mail, files, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
SQL Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention in Java (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Flash Parameter Injection (opens in a new tab)
Using Meta-characters in E-mail Headers to Inject Malicious Payloads (opens in a new tab)
HTTP Parameter Pollution (HPP) (opens in a new tab)
OS Command Injection (opens in a new tab)
Parameter Injection (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 11 Oct 2026, 22:35 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-88

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats