CVE-2024-45337VulnerabilityPublished 18 Jul 2025Updated 25 Oct 2026

Red Hat Security Advisory: OpenShift API for Data Protection (OADP) 1.4.5 security and bug fix update

Affects Red HatSource GCVE Database

Mentioned vulnerabilities

Not known to be exploited : upgrade to 1.4.5 soon.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 22:09 UTC

Severity

High

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

EPSS: 3.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 87% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.4.5

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 18 Jul 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 2026-10-25.

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

Upgrade Red Hat to 1.4.5.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Red Hat Product Security Red Hat	Affected >=1.4.0 <1.4.5 Red Hat OpenShift API for Data Protection 9Base-OADP-1.4 s390x oadp/oadp-kubevirt-velero-plugin-rhel9@sha256:475a27e370e023af9fc2698ce9b14a97cd0302d27f2bc52dc680bb63a82eb707_s390x cert-manager operator for Red Hat OpenShift cert-manager operator for Red Hat OpenShift 1.15 amd64 registry.redhat.io/cert-manager/cert-manager-operator-rhel9@sha256:b31cc2ba5ac8c6f18ee392a2193f81b3e4f4648a70549f2f5ada1d3c2bca500d_amd64	Fixed in 1.4.5

AI-suggested

Red Hat has released OpenShift API for Data Protection (OADP) version 1.4.5 which includes security fixes for the listed vulnerabilities. Users should upgrade to version 1.4.5 after applying all previously released errata relevant to their system. Detailed update instructions are available from Red Hat's official documentation. No additional mitigation steps are required beyond applying this official update.

Description

OpenShift API for Data Protection (OADP) enables you to back up and restore application resources, persistent volume data, and internal container images to external backup storage. OADP enables both file system-based and snapshot-based backups for persistent volumes. Security Fix(es) from Bugzilla: * golang.org/x/crypto/ssh: Misuse of ServerConfig.PublicKeyCallback may cause authorization bypass in golang.org/x/crypto (CVE-2024-45337) * golang.org/x/net/html: Non-linear parsing of case-insensitive content in golang.org/x/net/html (CVE-2024-45338) * go-git: argument injection via the URL field (CVE-2025-21613) * golang.org/x/oauth2/jws: Unexpected memory consumption during token parsing in golang.org/x/oauth2/jws (CVE-2025-22868) * golang.org/x/crypto/ssh: Denial of Service in the Key Exchange of golang.org/x/crypto/ssh (CVE-2025-22869) * golang-jwt/jwt: jwt-go allows excessive memory allocation during header parsing (CVE-2025-30204) * go-jose: Go JOSE's Parsing Vulnerable to Denial of Service (CVE-2025-27144) * net/http: Request smuggling due to acceptance of invalid chunked data in net/http (CVE-2025-22871) For more details about the security issue(s), including the impact, a CVSS score, and other related information, refer to the CVE page(s) listed in the References section.

Impact

The vulnerabilities fixed in this update could allow attackers to bypass authorization controls, cause denial of service conditions, perform request smuggling attacks, inject arguments via URLs, or trigger excessive memory consumption during token parsing. These issues affect the security and reliability of backup and restore operations in OpenShift API for Data Protection, potentially exposing sensitive data or disrupting service availability. The update mitigates these risks by patching the underlying Go libraries and components used by OADP.

Summary

The Red Hat OpenShift API for Data Protection (OADP) 1.4.5 update fixes several security vulnerabilities in dependencies such as golang.org/x/crypto/ssh, golang.org/x/net/html, go-git, golang.org/x/oauth2/jws, golang-jwt/jwt, go-jose, and net/http. Key issues include misuse of ServerConfig.PublicKeyCallback leading to potential authorization bypass (CVE-2024-45337), denial of service vulnerabilities in SSH key exchange and JOSE parsing, request smuggling in net/http, argument injection in go-git, and excessive memory allocation during JWT parsing. These vulnerabilities could impact the security of backup and restore operations managed by OADP. The update addresses these issues by incorporating fixes from the upstream Go libraries and related components. The affected versions are >=1.4.0 and <1.4.5. The vendor advisory confirms the availability of this update and recommends applying it after ensuring all prior errata are applied.

CWE-285Improper Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product does not perform or incorrectly performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
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 you perform access control checks related to your business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that you apply 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
Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs (opens in a new tab)
Cross Zone Scripting (opens in a new tab)
Directory Indexing (opens in a new tab)
Subverting Environment Variable Values (opens in a new tab)
Using Malicious Files (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-770Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #25
The product allocates a reusable resource or group of resources on behalf of an actor without imposing any intended restrictions on the size or number of resources that can be allocated.
Requirements
Clearly specify the minimum and maximum expectations for capabilities, and dictate which behaviors are acceptable when resource allocation reaches limits.
Architecture and Design
Limit the amount of resources that are accessible to unprivileged users. Set per-user limits for resources. Allow the system administrator to define these limits. Be careful to avoid CWE-410.
Architecture and Design
Design throttling mechanisms into the system architecture. The best protection is to limit the amount of resources that an unauthorized user can cause to be expended.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V13.4.1 (opens in a new tab)
V11.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
XML Ping of the Death (opens in a new tab)
Exponential Data Expansion (opens in a new tab)
Serialized Data Parameter Blowup (opens in a new tab)
Serialized Data with Nested Payloads (opens in a new tab)
Oversized Serialized Data Payloads (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
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).
CWE-1286Improper Validation of Syntactic Correctness of Input (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product receives input that is expected to be well-formed - i.e., to comply with a certain syntax - but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input complies with the syntax.
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
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
SQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
NoSQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-444Inconsistent Interpretation of HTTP Requests ('HTTP Request/Response Smuggling') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product acts as an intermediary HTTP agent (such as a proxy or firewall) in the data flow between two entities such as a client and server, but it does not interpret malformed HTTP requests or responses in ways that are consistent with how the messages will be processed by those entities that are at the ultimate destination.
Implementation
Use a web server that employs a strict HTTP parsing procedure, such as Apache.
Implementation
Use only SSL communication.
Implementation
Terminate the client session after each request.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
REST Assessment (opens in a new tab)
REST Security (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Site Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.2.5 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
HTTP Response Smuggling (opens in a new tab)
HTTP Request Smuggling (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-405Asymmetric Resource Consumption (Amplification) (opens in a new tab)
Class weakness
The product does not properly control situations in which an adversary can cause the product to consume or produce excessive resources without requiring the adversary to invest equivalent work or otherwise prove authorization, i.e., the adversary's influence is "asymmetric."
Architecture and Design
An application must make resources available to a client commensurate with the client's access level.
Architecture and Design
An application must, at all times, keep track of allocated resources and meter their usage appropriately.
System Configuration
Consider disabling resource-intensive algorithms on the server side, such as Diffie-Hellman key exchange.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
File Upload (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.1.1 (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 Aug 2026, 17:47 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-285, CWE-770, CWE-88 +3

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats