CVE-2024-1884
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 is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in the PaperCut NG/MF server-side module that allows an attacker to induce the server-side application to make HTTP requests to an arbitrary domain of the attacker's choosing.
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 confidenceCVE-2024-1884 is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in PaperCut NG/MF's server-side module. The flaw allows remote attackers to induce the application to make HTTP requests to arbitrary domains controlled by the attacker, potentially enabling internal service enumeration, cloud metadata access, or auxiliary attacks.
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
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/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 the installed PaperCut product and versionLocate the version information for your PaperCut installation (typically found in the application admin interface, About page, or installation logs). Confirm whether you are running PaperCut NG or PaperCut MF.Affected if The installed version falls into any of these ranges: < 20.1.10, >= 21.0.0 and < 21.2.14, >= 22.0.0 and < 22.1.5, or >= 23.0.1 and < 23.0.7
-
Determine if the server-side module is enabledAccess the PaperCut admin interface and check the configuration settings related to server-side integration or the server-side module feature.Affected if The server-side module or server-side integration feature is enabled and configured in your environment
-
Verify network accessibility from the applicationReview outbound network rules and proxy configurations to determine if the PaperCut server can initiate HTTP requests to arbitrary external domains.Affected if The server has unrestricted outbound network access and can reach arbitrary domains on HTTP/HTTPS ports
You are affected if your PaperCut NG/MF version is within the vulnerable ranges AND the server-side module is enabled, allowing an attacker to induce the application to make HTTP requests to attacker-controlled domains.
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
Apply the vendor-provided patch or upgrade to a fixed version of PaperCut NG/MF. Additionally, restrict outbound network connections from the server and implement network segmentation to limit the impact of SSRF exploitation.
Upgrade to PaperCut NG/MF version 20.1.10, 21.2.14, 22.1.5, or 23.0.7 (or later) depending on your current major version branch
- 1. Identify the currently installed PaperCut NG or MF version from the server's 'Help > About' page
- 2. For PaperCut MF users: upgrade to version 20.1.10, 21.2.14, 22.1.5, or 23.0.7 (or newer) depending on your current major version branch
- 3. For PaperCut NG users: upgrade to version 20.1.10, 21.2.14, 22.1.5, or 23.0.7 (or newer) depending on your current major version branch
- 4. Download the appropriate installer from the official PaperCut website at www.papercut.com
- 5. Back up the PaperCut server data directory before performing the upgrade
- 6. Run the installer on the PaperCut server and follow the upgrade wizard prompts
- 7. After upgrade, verify the server is operational and test that the SSRF vulnerability is no longer present
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $4,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-1884 — 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-2024-1884 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