CVE-2024-32462VulnerabilityPublished 17 Jun 2024Updated 5 Nov 2026

Red Hat Security Advisory: flatpak security update

Affects Red Hat flatpakSource GCVE Database

Compare

Not known to be exploited.

Data as of 5 Nov 2026, 13:35 UTC

Severity

High

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

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 17 Jun 2024
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: 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 5 Nov 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.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), 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

Red Hat has released security updates for Flatpak in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.4 to address this vulnerability. Users should apply the provided Flatpak updates as described in the Red Hat advisory (RHSA-2024:3963) and the linked article (https://access.redhat.com/articles/11258) to remediate this issue. Since this is an official fix, applying the update fully mitigates the vulnerability.

Description

A security vulnerability (CVE-2024-32462) in Flatpak allows sandbox escape via the RequestBackground portal. Flatpak is a system used on Linux for building, distributing, and running sandboxed desktop applications. Red Hat has issued an important security update addressing this flaw in Flatpak for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.4 variants. The vulnerability could allow an attacker to break out of the sandbox environment, potentially leading to unauthorized actions outside the intended application sandbox.

Impact

The vulnerability enables an attacker to escape the Flatpak sandbox, potentially allowing execution of unauthorized code or access to resources outside the sandbox. This compromises the security boundary Flatpak is intended to enforce, increasing risk of privilege escalation or system compromise on affected systems running vulnerable Flatpak versions.

Summary

CVE-2024-32462 is a sandbox escape vulnerability in Flatpak, specifically via the RequestBackground portal. Flatpak is designed to run desktop applications in isolated sandboxes on Linux systems. This vulnerability undermines that isolation, allowing an attacker to escape the sandbox containment. Red Hat has released security updates for Flatpak in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.4 to fix this issue. The advisory rates the security impact as Important (high severity). No CVSS score is provided in the input data. No known exploits in the wild have been reported.

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

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 5 Nov 2026, 13:35 UTC

Public exploits and detectionGitHub proofs of concept

WeaknessesCWE-88

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats