CVE-2024-29878
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 · uneditedCross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in Sentrifugo 3.2, through /sentrifugo/index.php/sitepreference/add, 'description' parameter. The exploitation of this vulnerability could allow a remote user to send a specially crafted URL to the victim and steal their session data.
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 confidenceA reflected Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability exists in Sentrifugo 3.2 within the /sentrifugo/index.php/sitepreference/add endpoint. The 'description' parameter does not properly sanitize user input, allowing injection of malicious JavaScript that executes in victim browsers when they access a specially crafted URL, enabling session theft.
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= 3.2CVSS 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
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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.
-
Confirm Sentrifugo is installedIdentify if the Sentrifugo application is present in your environment by locating the /sentrifugo directory or checking for Sentrifugo-related processes and web root entries.Affected if Sentrifugo is not present in your environment - you are not affected.
-
Check installed versionLocate the version identifier for your Sentrifugo installation (typically found in a version file, config file, or within the application header/footer) and compare it to version 3.2.Affected if Your installed version is exactly 3.2 - you are potentially affected. If your version differs, you are not affected by this specific CVE.
-
Verify vulnerable endpoint existsCheck if the /sentrifugo/index.php/sitepreference/add route is accessible in your application by attempting to access it or reviewing your routing configuration.Affected if This endpoint does not exist in your deployment - you are not affected.
-
Inspect description parameter handlingExamine the sitepreference controller logic that handles the 'description' parameter in the add function to determine if input sanitization or output encoding is implemented.Affected if The description parameter accepts unsanitized user input that gets reflected in the response without encoding - you are affected.
You are affected only if you have Sentrifugo version 3.2 deployed with the sitepreference/add endpoint accessible and the description parameter lacks input sanitization.
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 dataImplement proper input validation and output encoding for the description parameter in the sitepreference/add functionality. Additionally, configure Content Security Policy (CSP) headers to mitigate XSS attacks.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,272.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-29878 — 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-2024-29878 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