CVE-2024-27256
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 · uneditedIBM MQ Container 3.0.0, 3.0.1, 3.1.0 through 3.1.3 CD, 2.0.0 LTS through 2.0.22 LTS and 2.4.0 through 2.4.8, 2.3.0 through 2.3.3, 2.2.0 through 2.2.2 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information.
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 confidenceIBM MQ Container uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. This is a cryptographic weakness vulnerability where the cipher suites or encryption methods implemented do not meet current security standards, potentially allowing sensitive data in transit or at rest to be compromised.
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>= 2.0.0, <= 2.0.22>= 2.2.0, <= 2.2.2>= 2.3.0, <= 2.3.3>= 2.4.0, <= 2.4.8>= 3.1.0, <= 3.1.3= 3.0.0= 3.0.1= 9.2.0.1= 9.2.0.2= 9.2.0.4= 9.2.0.5= 9.2.0.6= 9.2.3.0= 9.2.4.0= 9.2.5.0= 9.3.0.0= 9.3.0.1= 9.3.0.3= 9.3.0.4CVSS 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 IBM MQ Operator versionRun 'kubectl get deployment ibm-mq-operator -o jsonpath={.spec.template.spec.containers[0].image}' or check the operator version in OLM catalogAffected if Version falls within 2.0.0-2.0.22, 2.2.0-2.2.2, 2.3.0-2.3.3, 2.4.0-2.4.8, 3.1.0-3.1.3, 3.0.0, or 3.0.1
-
Identify MQ Container image versionRun 'kubectl get pod -l app=mq -o jsonpath={.items[*].spec.containers[*].image}' to list MQ container images in useAffected if Image version equals 9.2.0.1, 9.2.0.2, 9.2.0.4, 9.2.0.5, 9.2.0.6, 9.2.3.0, 9.2.4.0, 9.2.5.0, 9.3.0.0, 9.3.0.1, 9.3.0.3, or 9.3.0.4
-
Review SSL/TLS cipher suite configurationInspect MQ configuration: check ConfigMaps, secrets, or mqsc files for 'SSLCIPH' or 'TLS' cipher suite settings such as 'NULL_MD5', 'NULL_SHA', 'DES', '3DES', or other weak algorithmsAffected if Weak or deprecated cipher suites like NULL_MD5, NULL_SHA, DES, or RC4 are configured in MQ queue manager SSL/TLS settings
-
Check MQ security exits or channel definitionsReview MQ channel definitions (SCQQMGR, SVRCONN) via 'runmqsc' with 'DISPLAY CHANNEL(*) SSLCIPH' for configured cipher specificationsAffected if Channels are configured with weak cipher suites that do not meet current TLS standards
You are affected if your IBM MQ Operator version or MQ container image version matches the affected version ranges AND weak cryptographic algorithms are in use in your MQ configuration.
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 dataUpgrade IBM MQ Container to a patched version that implements stronger cryptographic algorithms. If an immediate upgrade is not possible, review and configure the crypto policies to enforce stronger algorithms.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing10.0 h
- Review / QA6.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $9,504.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-27256 — 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-2024-27256 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