CVE-2024-9407VulnerabilityPublished 11 Nov 2024Updated 11 Oct 2026

SUSE · security update for podman

Affects SUSESource GCVE Database

Mentioned vulnerabilities

Authoritative record:CVE-2024-9407· Medium 4.7

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.7 Medium : upgrade to 5.2.4 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS base score

4.7Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 21% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 5.2.4, 1.37.4

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 1 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 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

Upgrade podman to 5.2.4; buildah to 1.37.4.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
podman	Affected <5.2.4	Fixed in 5.2.4
buildah	Affected <1.37.4	Fixed in 1.37.4
Red HatRed Hat Enterprise Linux 8	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRed Hat Enterprise Linux 9	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRed Hat Enterprise Linux 9	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRed Hat Enterprise Linux 9	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRed Hat Enterprise Linux 9.4 Extended Update Support	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRed Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4.16	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRed Hat Enterprise Linux 10	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRed Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4	Affected–	Fixed in–
Red HatRed Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4	Affected–	Fixed in–
GitHubpodman`pkg:github/podman`Other threats	Affected <5.2.4	Fixed in 5.2.4
GitHubbuildah`pkg:github/buildah`Other threats	Affected <1.37.4	Fixed in 1.37.4

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

AI-suggested

Red Hat has released updated packages for podman and related components that address these vulnerabilities. Users running affected versions of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 (>=9.0.0 <9.9.0) should apply the security updates as described in the Red Hat advisory RHSA-2024:9051 and the referenced article https://access.redhat.com/articles/11258. No additional mitigation steps are indicated beyond applying the official patches.

Description

The podman tool manages pods, container images, and containers. It is part of the libpod library, which is for applications that use container pods. Container pods is a concept in Kubernetes. Security Fix(es): * Buildah: Podman: Improper Input Validation in bind-propagation Option of Dockerfile RUN --mount Instruction (CVE-2024-9407) * buildah: Buildah allows arbitrary directory mount (CVE-2024-9675) * Podman: Buildah: CRI-O: symlink traversal vulnerability in the containers/storage library can cause Denial of Service (DoS) (CVE-2024-9676) For more details about the security issue(s), including the impact, a CVSS score, acknowledgments, and other related information, refer to the CVE page(s) listed in the References section.

Impact

The vulnerabilities can lead to improper input validation allowing potentially unsafe bind-propagation settings, unauthorized arbitrary directory mounts, and denial of service via symlink traversal in container storage. These issues could disrupt container operations and potentially allow unauthorized access or denial of service conditions in containerized environments managed by podman and related tools.

Summary

This advisory covers three security vulnerabilities affecting podman and related container management tools in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9. CVE-2024-9407 involves improper input validation in the bind-propagation option of the Dockerfile RUN --mount instruction, potentially leading to security issues. CVE-2024-9675 allows Buildah to mount arbitrary directories, which could be exploited to bypass restrictions. CVE-2024-9676 is a symlink traversal vulnerability in the containers/storage library used by Podman, Buildah, and CRI-O that can cause denial of service. Red Hat has released updated packages to fix these vulnerabilities. The affected versions are Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 from 9.0.0 up to but excluding 9.9.0. The vendor advisory classifies the impact as Important and provides detailed update instructions.

CWE-20Improper Input Validation (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #18OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Attack Surface Reduction
Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build "recognizers" for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of…
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
Architecture and Design · Implementation · Attack Surface Reduction
Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any…
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (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
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
Buffer Overflow via Environment Variables (opens in a new tab)
Server Side Include (SSI) Injection (opens in a new tab)
Cross Zone Scripting (opens in a new tab)
Command Line Execution through SQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
Object Relational Mapping Injection (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-22Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #6OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but the product does not properly neutralize special elements within the pathname that can cause the pathname to resolve to a location that is outside of the restricted directory.
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.
Architecture and Design
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks…
Implementation · Input Validation
Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Path Traversal (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes and URL Encoding Combined to Bypass Validation Logic (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls (opens in a new tab)
Using Escaped Slashes in Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes in Alternate Encoding (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 3 Aug 2026, 01:28 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-20, CWE-22

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats