CVE-2024-21494
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 · uneditedAll versions of the package github.com/greenpau/caddy-security are vulnerable to Authentication Bypass by Spoofing via the X-Forwarded-For header due to improper input sanitization. An attacker can spoof an IP address used in the user identity module (/whoami API endpoint). This could lead to unauthorized access if the system trusts this spoofed IP address.
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 confidenceAll versions of github.com/greenpau/caddy-security have improper input sanitization of the X-Forwarded-For header, allowing attackers to spoof IP addresses in the /whoami API endpoint. If downstream systems trust this spoofed IP for authentication or authorization decisions, unauthorized access may occur.
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 dataall versionsCVSS 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
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/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 if caddy-security is deployedCheck for go.mod containing 'github.com/greenpau/caddy-security' or look for the binary/plugin in the Caddy configurationAffected if The product is present in the environment
-
Confirm the /whoami endpoint existsCheck if the /whoami route is registered in the Caddyfile or programmatic configuration (search for 'whoami' or the path handler)Affected if The /whoami endpoint is exposed and accessible
-
Verify X-Forwarded-For header handlingInspect the source code or configuration to see if the X-Forwarded-For header is read and used without validation. Look for header extraction logic in the whoami handler.Affected if The application processes X-Forwarded-For without sanitization or anti-spoofing checks
-
Check if IP is used for auth decisionsReview downstream systems or application logic to see if the client IP (potentially from X-Forwarded-For) is used for authentication or authorizationAffected if The IP from the header is trusted for access control decisions without additional verification
If caddy-security with the /whoami endpoint is in use and the X-Forwarded-For header is trusted for authentication or authorization, the environment is affected by this vulnerability.
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 dataImplement strict validation of X-Forwarded-For headers, preferably by only trusting the header from trusted proxies and adding anti-spoofing measures such as validating IP format and rejecting obviously spoofed values.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-21494 — 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-2024-21494 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