CVE-2024-2947
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 · uneditedA flaw was found in Cockpit. Deleting a sosreport with a crafted name via the Cockpit web interface can lead to a command injection vulnerability, resulting in privilege escalation. This issue affects Cockpit versions 270 and newer.
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 confidenceCockpit versions 270 and newer contain a command injection vulnerability in the sosreport deletion functionality. By creating or renaming a sosreport with a specially crafted filename containing shell metacharacters, an attacker can inject and execute arbitrary commands through the web interface, achieving privilege escalation since Cockpit runs with elevated privileges.
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
- Low
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify installed Cockpit versionRun 'cockpit --version' or check the package manager (e.g., 'rpm -q cockpit' or 'dpkg -l cockpit') to determine the installed version numberAffected if The version number is 270 or higher
-
Verify Cockpit service is running and accessibleCheck if the Cockpit service is active with 'systemctl status cockpit' or check if port 9090 is listening with 'ss -tlnp | grep 9090'Affected if Cockpit is running and network-accessible (port 9090)
-
Confirm sosreport plugin is availableCheck if the sosreport functionality exists by accessing the Cockpit web interface and navigating to the diagnostics/sosreport section, or verify the package 'cockpit-sosreport' is installedAffected if The sosreport feature is present and accessible through the web interface
-
Assess user access to Cockpit web interfaceReview user accounts and permissions that can access the Cockpit web interface at port 9090, using 'cockpit-auth' configuration or system user managementAffected if Users other than trusted administrators can access the Cockpit web interface and manage sosreports
You are affected if Cockpit version 270 or higher is installed, the Cockpit service is running with the sosreport feature accessible, and untrusted users can access the Cockpit web interface to create or rename sosreport files.
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 dataUpdate Cockpit to a patched version when released, or implement strict access controls on the Cockpit web interface to prevent untrusted users from managing sosreports.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,408.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-2947 — 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-2024-2947 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