CVE-2024-11079VulnerabilityPublished 16 Dec 2024Updated 28 Jun 2026

Red Hat Security Advisory: Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.5 Product Security and Bug Fix Update

Affects Red HatSource GCVE Database

Mentioned vulnerabilities

CVE-2024-11483

Authoritative record:CVE-2024-11079· Medium 5.5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.5 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 10:12 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 44% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: Low
Availability: Low

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: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
Scope: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
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: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component.
Availability: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 11 Nov 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Red Hat Product Security Red Hat	Affected Red Hat Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.5 for RHEL 8	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Red Hat has released an official security update for Ansible Automation Platform 2.5 that addresses these vulnerabilities. Users should apply the update as provided in Red Hat Security Advisory RHSA-2024:11145 to remediate these issues. Patch status is confirmed by the vendor advisory. No additional mitigation steps are indicated beyond applying the official update.

Description

Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform provides an enterprise framework for building, deploying and managing IT automation at scale. IT Managers can provide top-down guidelines on how automation is applied to individual teams, while automation developers retain the freedom to write tasks that leverage existing knowledge without the overhead. Ansible Automation Platform makes it possible for users across an organization to share, vet, and manage automation content by means of a simple, powerful, and agentless language. Security Fix(es): * ansible-core: Unsafe Tagging Bypass via hostvars Object in Ansible-Core (CVE-2024-11079) * automation-gateway: Improper Scope Handling in OAuth2 Tokens for AAP 2.5 (CVE-2024-11483) 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. Updates and fixes included: Automation Platform UI * Added support for filtering job templates, jobs, and inventories by labels (AAP-36540) * Fixed an issue where it was not possible to open a job template after removing the user which created the template (AAP-35820) * Fixed an issue where the inventory source update failed, and did not allow selection of the inventory file (AAP-35246) * Fixed an issue where the Login Redirect Override setting was missing and not functioning as expected (AAP-33295) * Disabled auto complete for secret credential fields (AAP-33188) * Fixed an issue where users were able to select a credential that required a password when defining a schedule (AAP-32821) * Fixed the navigation Team -> roles -> eda to the created team role page, where it did not work after adding a new team role.(AAP-31873) * When configuring an Ansible Remote to sync collections from other servers, a requirements file is only required for syncs from Galaxy, and optional otherwise. Without a requirements file, all collections get synced (AAP-31238) * Fixed an issue where the job output did not show unless you switched tabs (AAP-31125) * Fixed an issue where the bulk removal of selected role permissions disappeared when more than 4 permissions were selected (AAP-28030) Event-Driven Ansible * Fixed an issue where the project sync would not fail on an empty or unstructured git repository (AAP-35777) * Fixed an issue in the collection where the activation module failed with a misleading error message if the rulebook, project, decision environment, or organization could not be found (AAP-35360) * Fixed an issue where rulebook validation import/sync fails when a rulebook has a duplicated rule name (AAP-35164) * Added validation that a host specified as part of a container registry credential conforms to container registry standards (AAP-34969) * Fixed an issue where the Event Driven Ansible API allowed a credential’s type to be changed (AAP-34968) * Fixed an issue where a previously failed project could be accidentally changed to completed after a resync (AAP-34744) * Fixed an issue where no message was recorded when a project did not contain any rulebooks (AAP-34555) * Fixed an issue whereby multiple Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform credentials were being attached to activations (AAP-34025) * Fixed an issue where the url field of the event stream was not updated if EDA_EVENT_STREAM_BASE_URL setting changed (AAP-33819) * Extended the scope of the log_level and debug settings (AAP-33669) * Fixed an issue where there was an erroneous dependency on the existence of an organization named Default (AAP-33551) * A project can now be synced with the Event Driven Ansible collection modules (AAP-32264) * Fixed an issue where occasionally an activation is reported as running, before it is ready to receive events (AAP-31225) * Fixed an issue where Enabled options had its own scrollbar on the Rulebook Activation Details page (AAP-31130) * Added 'purge_log_records' to aap-eda-manage to clean up outdated database records (AAP-30684) * Fixed an issue where the status of an activation was occasionally inconsistent with the status of the latest instance after a restart (AAP-29755) * Fixed an issue where the user could not edit auto-generated injector vars while creating Event Driven Ansible custom credentials (AAP-29752) * Fixed an issue where importing a project from a non-existing branch resulted in the completed state instead of a Failed status (AAP-29144) * Fixed an issue where in some cases the file_watch source plugin in an Event Driven Ansible collection raised the QueueFull exception (AAP-29139) * In the Rulebook activation create form, selecting a project is now required before selecting a rulebook (AAP-28082) * The Create Credentials button is now visible irrespective of whether there are any existing credentials or not (AAP-23707) * automation-eda-controller has been updated to 1.1.3 * ansible-rulebook has been updated to 1.1.2 Container-based Ansible Automation Platform * Fixed an issue that allowed Automation controll

Impact

The vulnerabilities could allow attackers to bypass tagging restrictions in ansible-core or misuse OAuth2 tokens due to improper scope handling, potentially leading to unauthorized actions within the automation platform. This may affect the integrity and security of automated IT operations managed by the platform. No known exploits in the wild have been reported at this time.

Summary

This advisory addresses two security vulnerabilities in Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.5. The first, CVE-2024-11079, is an unsafe tagging bypass via the hostvars object in ansible-core, potentially allowing unauthorized access or privilege escalation within automation tasks. The second, CVE-2024-11483, involves improper scope handling in OAuth2 tokens in the automation-gateway, which could lead to unauthorized token usage. Red Hat has issued an update that includes fixes for these vulnerabilities along with multiple bug fixes and feature improvements. The advisory rates the security impact as moderate and provides an updated package for Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.5 for RHEL 8.

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-284Improper Access Control (opens in a new tab)
Pillar weaknessCWE Top 25 (2025): #19OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product does not restrict or incorrectly restricts access to a resource from an unauthorized actor.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Operation
Very carefully manage the setting, management, and handling of privileges. Explicitly manage trust zones in the software.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Docker Security (opens in a new tab)
Third Party Javascript Management (opens in a new tab)
Virtual Patching (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.4.4 (opens in a new tab)
V1.4.5 (opens in a new tab)
V1.10.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Embedding Scripts within Scripts (opens in a new tab)
Modification of Windows Service Configuration (opens in a new tab)
Malicious Root Certificate (opens in a new tab)
Intent Spoof (opens in a new tab)
WebView Exposure (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 26 Jun 2026, 02:18 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-20, CWE-284

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats