CVE-2024-45802VulnerabilityPublished 14 Nov 2024Updated 11 Oct 2026

SUSE · security update for squid

Affects SUSESource GCVE Database

Authoritative record:CVE-2024-45802· High 7.5

Not known to be exploited · 47% EPSS · CVSS 7.5 High : upgrade to 6.10 soon.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 07:57 UTC

CVSS base score

7.5High

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

EPSS: 47.8% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 98% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 6.10

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 28 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 squid-cache/squid to 6.10.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubsquid-cache/squid`pkg:github/squid-cache/squid`Other threats	Affected <6.10	Fixed in 6.10

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 official security updates for affected versions of Squid in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 Extended Lifecycle Support and Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.2 Advanced Update Support. Users should apply these updates as described in Red Hat advisories RHSA-2024:9738 and RHSA-2024:9624. Detailed update instructions are available at https://access.redhat.com/articles/11258. No additional mitigation steps are indicated by the vendor.

Description

A denial of service vulnerability (CVE-2024-45802) exists in Squid, a high-performance proxy caching server, when processing ESI response content. This vulnerability affects Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 Extended Lifecycle Support and Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.2 Advanced Update Support versions of Squid. Red Hat has released security updates to address this issue. The vulnerability is rated as having an important security impact by Red Hat Product Security. No CVSS score is provided in the advisory.

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).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 11 Oct 2026, 22:27 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-20

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats