CVE-2024-10905
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 · uneditedIdentityIQ 8.4 and all 8.4 patch levels prior to 8.4p2, IdentityIQ 8.3 and all 8.3 patch levels prior to 8.3p5, IdentityIQ 8.2 and all 8.2 patch levels prior to 8.2p8, and all prior versions allow HTTP/HTTPS access to static content in the IdentityIQ application directory that should be protected.
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 · high confidenceIdentityIQ versions prior to 8.4p2, 8.3p5, and 8.2p8 contain a path traversal or improper access control vulnerability that exposes static content within the application directory via HTTP/HTTPS that should be protected. This critical flaw allows unauthenticated attackers to access sensitive static resources that should be restricted.
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< 8.2= 8.2= 8.3= 8.4CVSS 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
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/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 IdentityIQ versionLocate the IdentityIQ WAR file or application directory. Check the MANIFEST.MF file within the WAR, or look for a version file in the IdentityIQ application directory that displays the installed release version.Affected if The installed version is 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, or any version prior to 8.2 (versions before the patch releases)
-
Verify patch level for 8.2 installationsIf running IdentityIQ 8.2, confirm whether patch 8 (8.2p8) is applied by checking the patch level in the system information or version manifest.Affected if Running IdentityIQ 8.2 without patch 8 installed (8.2p8 not present)
-
Verify patch level for 8.3 installationsIf running IdentityIQ 8.3, confirm whether patch 5 (8.3p5) is applied by checking the patch level in the system information or version manifest.Affected if Running IdentityIQ 8.3 without patch 5 installed (8.3p5 not present)
-
Verify patch level for 8.4 installationsIf running IdentityIQ 8.4, confirm whether patch 2 (8.4p2) is applied by checking the patch level in the system information or version manifest.Affected if Running IdentityIQ 8.4 without patch 2 installed (8.4p2 not present)
-
Test for path traversal exposure of static contentUsing a web browser or HTTP client, attempt to access static resources that should be protected within the IdentityIQ application directory using path traversal sequences (such as ../../) via HTTP/HTTPS requests to the application endpoint.Affected if Unauthenticated HTTP/HTTPS requests successfully retrieve static content that should be restricted or protected behind access controls
The environment is affected if IdentityIQ is installed at version 8.2, 8.3, or 8.4 (or any version prior to 8.2) without the corresponding patches (8.2p8, 8.3p5, or 8.4p2) applied, and protected static content is accessible via path traversal.
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 · scoped8.2
Apply the vendor-released patches (8.4p2, 8.3p5, or 8.2p8) or upgrade to a patched version to enforce proper access controls on static content within the IdentityIQ application directory.
8.2p8 (or later) for 8.2.x; 8.3p5 (or later) for 8.3.x; 8.4p2 (or later) for 8.4.x
- 1. Identify the current IdentityIQ version and patch level by checking the system configuration or login page footer
- 2. For IdentityIQ 8.2.x: upgrade to patch level 8.2p8 or later
- 3. For IdentityIQ 8.3.x: upgrade to patch level 8.3p5 or later
- 4. For IdentityIQ 8.4.x: upgrade to patch level 8.4p2 or later
- 5. After applying the patch, verify the fix by confirming static content in the IdentityIQ application directory is no longer accessible via HTTP/HTTPS without authentication
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,328.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-10905 — 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-2024-10905 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