CVE-2024-22893
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 · uneditedOpenSlides 4.0.15 verifies passwords by comparing password hashes using a function with content-dependent runtime. This can allow attackers to obtain information about the password hash using a timing attack.
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 confidenceOpenSlides 4.0.15 contains a timing side-channel vulnerability in its password hash verification function. The comparison logic has content-dependent runtime behavior, meaning the execution time varies based on the hash bytes being compared. An attacker can exploit this by sending many login attempts and measuring response times to progressively deduce the password hash byte-by-byte.
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= 4.0.15CVSS 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
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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 OpenSlides installation and versionCheck the installed OpenSlides version by inspecting package files, docker image tags, or the application's version endpoint if available. Common locations: package.json, setup.py, requirements.txt, or the About page in the web UI.Affected if The installed version is exactly 4.0.15
-
Confirm password-based authentication is enabledCheck if OpenSlides is configured to use local password authentication. Review the authentication configuration file or settings panel in the OpenSlides admin interface.Affected if Password-based login authentication is enabled and in use
-
Examine the password hash comparison codeLocate the password verification function in the OpenSlides codebase (typically in the auth module). Inspect the code that compares the stored password hash with the provided hash during login.Affected if The comparison uses a regular string/bytes comparison operator (==) or similar non-constant-time method instead of hmac.compare_digest or timing-safe comparison
-
Verify runtime variation with input contentPerform multiple login attempts with varying password inputs and measure response times. Compare whether the response times correlate with input patterns or differ based on how much of the hash matches.Affected if Response times demonstrably vary based on the content of the hash being compared, indicating content-dependent runtime behavior
You are affected if OpenSlides 4.0.15 is running with password authentication enabled and the password hash verification uses non-constant-time comparison, allowing attackers to deduce hashes via timing measurements.
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 dataReplace the vulnerable hash comparison with a constant-time comparison algorithm (e.g., using hmac.compare_digest or similar) to ensure runtime does not vary with input content.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 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 $2,272.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-22893 — 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-2024-22893 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