CVE-2024-27139
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 · unedited** UNSUPPORTED WHEN ASSIGNED ** Incorrect Authorization vulnerability in Apache Archiva: a vulnerability in Apache Archiva allows an unauthenticated attacker to modify account data, potentially leading to account takeover. This issue affects Apache Archiva: from 2.0.0. As this project is retired, we do not plan to release a version that fixes this issue. Users are recommended to find an alternative or restrict access to the instance to trusted users. NOTE: This vulnerability only affects products that are no longer supported by the maintainer.
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 confidenceApache Archiva contains an incorrect authorization vulnerability allowing unauthenticated attackers to modify user account data, potentially achieving account takeover. The flaw is present in versions 2.0.0 and later, requiring only network access to exploit without any authentication.
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>= 2.0.0CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/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.
-
Confirm Apache Archiva is installedLook for Apache Archiva process running or check for its installation directory. Common locations: /opt/archiva, /usr/share/archiva, or check running Java processes for 'archiva' in the command line.Affected if Apache Archiva software is present on the system
-
Identify installed versionCheck the version file in the Archiva installation directory, typically found in a VERSION or RELEASE file, or examine the pom.xml/manifest if available. You can also query the application via its web interface at /restServices/archivaServices/about if exposed.Affected if Version cannot be determined or is 2.0.0 or higher
-
Verify network accessibilityCheck if the Archiva web interface port (default 8080) is bound to a non-localhost interface or is accessible through firewall rules. Use 'netstat -tlnp | grep -E "(8080|archiva)"' or review firewall configuration.Affected if The web interface is accessible from network addresses beyond localhost
-
Confirm user registry is exposedTest if the user registration or user modification endpoints are reachable without authentication. Attempt a GET request to known API endpoints like /restServices/archivaServices/userService/users or check application configuration for security constraints.Affected if User service endpoints respond without requiring authentication credentials
The environment is affected if Apache Archiva version 2.0.0 or later is installed and its web interface is network-accessible, allowing unauthenticated user account modification.
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 · scopedSince Apache Archiva is retired and will not receive security patches, organizations should either migrate to an alternative solution or strictly restrict network access to trusted users only.
- This vulnerability has no fix as Apache Archiva is retired and unsupported.
- If possible, migrate to an alternative repository manager such as Sonatype Nexus Repository, JFrog Artifactory, or Apache Maven Repository (mr Jar).
- If migration is not immediately possible, restrict network access to the Archiva instance to trusted users only via firewall rules, VPN, or IP allow-listing.
- Disable or remove the Archiva instance if it is no longer needed.
- Monitor for any unauthorized access attempts to the affected system.
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 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 $4,880.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-27139 — 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-2024-27139 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