CVE-2024-1052
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedBoundary and Boundary Enterprise (“Boundary”) is vulnerable to session hijacking through TLS certificate tampering. An attacker with privileges to enumerate active or pending sessions, obtain a private key pertaining to a session, and obtain a valid trust on first use (TOFU) token may craft a TLS certificate to hijack an active session and gain access to the underlying service or application.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · moderate confidenceHashiCorp Boundary and Boundary Enterprise contain a session hijacking vulnerability where an authenticated attacker with privileges to enumerate sessions can obtain session private keys and valid TOFU tokens, allowing them to craft malicious TLS certificates that hijack active sessions and gain unauthorized access to underlying services or applications.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data>= 0.8.0, < 0.15.0CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- High
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify installed Boundary versionRun `boundary --version` or check the Boundary server/package version to determine the exact version running in your environmentAffected if The installed version is >= 0.8.0 and < 0.15.0
-
Verify session enumeration accessReview user roles and permissions to determine if any user account has privileges to enumerate active sessions through the Boundary API or CLIAffected if Users with session enumeration privileges exist in the system
-
Check for active sessionsQuery the Boundary session list using an account with enumeration privileges to enumerate currently active sessionsAffected if Active sessions are present and can be enumerated
-
Review session token exposureInspect session data returned by the enumeration API for the presence of session private keys or TOFU (Trust On First Use) tokens in the responseAffected if Session enumeration responses include private key material or TOFU tokens to authorized enumerators
-
Audit TLS certificate generationMonitor for unexpected or unauthorized TLS certificate creation events, particularly certificates generated using session keys or TOFU tokensAffected if TLS certificates are being created using exposed session credentials
Your environment is affected if you run Boundary version 0.8.0 through 0.14.x and have users with session enumeration privileges that could expose session private keys and TOFU tokens.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
dbcve · scoped0.15.0
Limit user privileges to prevent unauthorized session enumeration, apply vendor patches when available, and monitor for suspicious TLS certificate creation or session anomaly activity.
Boundary 0.15.0
- 1. Back up your Boundary database and configuration files before upgrading
- 2. Review the Boundary 0.15.0 release notes for any breaking changes or migration requirements
- 3. Download Boundary version 0.15.0 or later from the official HashiCorp releases (https://www.boundaryproject.io/downloads)
- 4. Stop the Boundary controller and worker services
- 5. Upgrade the Boundary binary to version 0.15.0
- 6. Run any necessary database migrations if required (boundary database migrate -config=/path/to/config.hcl)
- 7. Restart the Boundary controller and worker services
- 8. Verify the upgrade by checking the Boundary version (boundary version) and confirming all services are operational
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation10.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,464.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-1052 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2024-1052 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data