CVE-2024-11994
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 · uneditedAPM server logs could contain parts of the document body from a partially failed bulk index request. Depending on the nature of the document, this could disclose sensitive information in APM Server error logs.
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 confidenceAPM Server incorrectly writes document body content to error logs when bulk index requests partially fail. When some documents in a bulk request fail processing, the server may include portions of the document body in the error log message, potentially exposing sensitive data such as PII, credentials, or other confidential information that was in the failed documents.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
CVSS 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
- Adjacent
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
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 APM Server installation and versionRun 'apm-server version' or check the package manager for installed apm-server package. Compare the installed version against the affected version range provided by the vendor.Affected if APM Server is installed and the version falls within the affected range.
-
Confirm bulk indexing is in useAPM Server uses Elasticsearch bulk API to index traces and metrics. Verify APM Server is configured to connect to Elasticsearch and is actively processing monitoring data. Check apm-server.yml for 'output.elasticsearch' configuration.Affected if APM Server is configured with Elasticsearch output and is processing incoming APM data.
-
Locate and examine APM Server error logsCheck the configured log directory (typically /var/log/apm-server or as specified in apm-server.yml under 'logging.files.path'). Search for entries containing 'bulk' and 'error' or 'failed'.Affected if Error logs exist and contain bulk index failure messages.
-
Inspect failure messages for document body contentReview the error log entries from the previous step. Look for any plain-text content that resembles APM document data (JSON payloads with trace IDs, spans, transactions, or user-defined fields) appearing within or alongside the error messages.Affected if Error log entries show portions of document body content in failure messages rather than just index names or document IDs.
You are affected if APM Server is running with a vulnerable version, processing bulk index requests, and error logs contain actual document body content from failed documents.
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.
From vendor dataConfigure log retention and access controls to limit exposure of APM Server error logs. Apply any available vendor patches that sanitize or redact document body content from bulk index failure messages.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-11994 — 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-2024-11994 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