CVE-2024-28831
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 · uneditedStored XSS in some confirmation pop-ups in Checkmk before versions 2.3.0p7 and 2.2.0p28 allows Checkmk users to execute arbitrary scripts by injecting HTML elements into some user input fields that are shown in a confirmation pop-up.
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 confidenceStored XSS vulnerability in Checkmk confirmation pop-ups allows attackers to inject malicious HTML/JavaScript into user input fields. When these inputs are displayed in confirmation dialogs, the injected scripts execute in the browsers of other users who view those pop-ups.
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<= 2.2.0= 2.2.0= 2.3.0CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/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 installed Checkmk versionRun the Checkmk command to retrieve the version, typically via 'cmk --version' or by checking the web interface header for the version numberAffected if The installed version is 2.3.0, or 2.2.0 or any version below 2.2.0 (such as 2.1.x, 2.0.x, or 1.x)
-
Confirm Checkmk web interface is accessibleVerify that the Checkmk web server is running and accessible at the configured URLAffected if The web interface is enabled and reachable, as the vulnerability manifests in browser-based confirmation pop-ups
-
Determine if custom confirmation dialogs use user-supplied inputReview Checkmk configuration or custom automation scripts that invoke confirmation pop-ups with dynamic user-provided contentAffected if Custom inputs are displayed in confirmation dialogs without additional sanitization applied by the administrator
A user is affected if running Checkmk version 2.3.0 or 2.2.0 or lower, and the system utilizes confirmation pop-ups that display user-supplied input in the web interface.
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 · scopedUpgrade Checkmk to version 2.3.0p7 or 2.2.0p28 or later to obtain the vendor patch that properly sanitizes user input displayed in confirmation pop-ups.
2.2.0p28 for 2.2.x branches, or 2.3.0p7 for 2.3.0
- Identify the currently installed Checkmk version using 'cmk --version' or the web interface
- Determine the appropriate upgrade path: for 2.2.x versions, upgrade to 2.2.0p28; for 2.3.0, upgrade to 2.3.0p7
- Download the corresponding fixed version from the official Checkmk download page
- Create a complete backup of the Checkmk installation including configuration and monitoring data
- Test the upgrade in a non-production environment first
- Apply the upgrade following Checkmk's standard upgrade documentation (typically: 'cmk -U' or using the Ansible/automation method used in your deployment)
- Verify the upgrade was successful and the vulnerability is resolved
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $4,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-28831 — 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-2024-28831 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