CVE-2024-1654
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 · uneditedThis vulnerability potentially allows unauthorized write operations which may lead to remote code execution. An attacker must already have authenticated admin access and knowledge of both an internal system identifier and details of another valid user to exploit this.
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 confidenceThis is an authorization bypass vulnerability in the WordPress plugin or theme that allows an authenticated administrator with knowledge of an internal system identifier and another user's details to perform unauthorized write operations, potentially leading to remote code execution.
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< 20.1.10>= 21.0.0, < 21.2.14>= 22.0.0, < 22.1.5>= 23.0.1, < 23.0.7< 20.1.10>= 21.0.0, < 21.2.14>= 22.0.0, < 22.1.5>= 23.0.1, < 23.0.7CVSS 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
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/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 Papercut installation versionAccess the Papercut admin interface and navigate to the About or System Information page to view the installed version number. Alternatively, check the application's help or diagnostics section.Affected if The installed version falls within any of these vulnerable ranges: < 20.1.10; >= 21.0.0 and < 21.2.14; >= 22.0.0 and < 22.1.5; >= 23.0.1 and < 23.0.7
-
Verify administrator account existenceCheck if there are any administrator-level user accounts configured in the Papercut user database or directory service integration.Affected if At least one administrator account exists in the system, as the vulnerability requires authenticated admin access to exploit.
-
Review system identifier exposureInspect server logs, API endpoints, or administrative interfaces for any internal system identifiers (such as user IDs, session tokens, or internal reference numbers) that may be discoverable by authenticated users.Affected if Internal system identifiers are visible or accessible to authenticated administrators beyond their own user context.
-
Audit write operations and user modification capabilitiesExamine Papercut's administrative functions for user creation, modification, or system configuration write operations to determine if any endpoint allows operations on other users without proper permission validation.Affected if The system permits an authenticated administrator to modify or perform write operations on other user accounts or system resources without verifying the requester's actual permissions for that specific target.
A system is affected if it runs a Papercut version within the vulnerable ranges listed AND has at least one administrator account configured, allowing a potential attacker with admin credentials to bypass authorization on user modification operations.
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 · scoped20.1.1021.2.1422.1.5
Restrict write operations to strictly enforce proper authorization checks validating the current user's permissions against the requested action and target resource, regardless of admin status.
Papercut Mf/Ng 23.0.7 or later (or the respective fix version for your branch: 20.1.10, 21.2.14, 22.1.5, or 23.0.7)
- 1. Identify the currently installed Papercut Mf or Ng version from the admin interface (Help > About) or server configuration
- 2. Based on current version, determine the appropriate upgrade path to reach a fixed release
- 3. Download the appropriate Papercut installer from the official vendor website (www.papercut.com) - ensure you download from the official source only
- 4. Before upgrading, backup the Papercut data directory and any custom configurations
- 5. Stop the Papercut service before performing the upgrade
- 6. Run the installer with appropriate administrator privileges
- 7. Follow the on-screen upgrade instructions provided by the installer
- 8. After upgrade completes, verify the new version number matches the expected fixed release
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-1654 — 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-2024-1654 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