Missing AuthenticationWeakness · CWE-306

CVE-2024-27758

HIGH · 8.4 CVSS v3.1 Published 2024-03-12
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
89/100
Remediation priority · High
No privileges Zero-click

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
In RPyC before 6.0.0, when a server exposes a method that calls the attribute named __array__ for a client-provided netref (e.g., np.array(client_netref)), a remote attacker can craft a class that results in remote code execution.

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 confidence

RPyC before 6.0.0 contains a remote code execution vulnerability where an attacker can craft a malicious class that gets invoked when a server method accesses the __array__ attribute on a client-provided netref. When the server calls np.array(client_netref), it triggers the attacker's controlled __array__ method, enabling arbitrary code execution on the server.

MitigationUpgrade to RPyC 6.0.0 or later. Review server-side code to ensure methods do not call special attributes like __array__ on untrusted client-provided netrefs without validation.

Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.

CVSS 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
Local
Complexity
Low
Privileges
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify RPyC installation and version
    Run 'pip show rpyc' or import rpyc and print(rpyc.__version__)
    Affected if RPyC is installed and version is below 6.0.0
  2. Check for numpy usage with RPyC services
    Search codebase for imports of both numpy and rpyc, and inspect any service classes that handle client netref objects
    Affected if Numpy is used in the same application that exposes RPyC services to untrusted clients
  3. Inspect server code for np.array calls on client objects
    Search for patterns like 'np.array(' or 'numpy.array(' where the argument could be a client-provided netref object
    Affected if Server methods call numpy array functions on objects that originate from untrusted clients
  4. Verify netref exposure to untrusted clients
    Review RPyC service implementation to confirm that client-provided objects (netrefs) can reach code paths that invoke special methods like __array__
    Affected if RPyC servers expose methods to untrusted clients without validating that arguments are not client-controlled netrefs

You are affected if RPyC version is below 6.0.0 and your server code uses numpy to process client-provided objects that could trigger __array__ method invocation on untrusted netrefs.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 · scoped
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Upgrade to RPyC 6.0.0 or later. Review server-side code to ensure methods do not call special attributes like __array__ on untrusted client-provided netrefs without validation.

Recommended fix Moderate confidence

RPyC 6.0.0 or later

  1. Identify the current RPyC version installed in your environment (e.g., run `pip show rpyc` or `pip list | grep rpyc`)
  2. Upgrade RPyC to version 6.0.0 or later by running: `pip install --upgrade rpyc`
  3. Verify the installed version is 6.0.0 or later using: `pip show rpyc`
  4. Test that RPyC-dependent applications function correctly after the upgrade
Caveat Review RPyC 6.0.0 release notes for any API changes that may affect existing code

Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation2.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA1.0 h
8.0 hours of engineering $1,390
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,224.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-27758 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2024-27758 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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