CVE-2024-29969
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 · uneditedWhen a Brocade SANnav installation is upgraded from Brocade SANnav v2.2.2 to Brocade SANnav 2.3.0, TLS/SSL weak message authentication code ciphers are added by default for port 18082.
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 confidenceDuring upgrade of Brocade SANnav from v2.2.2 to v2.3.0, weak message authentication code (MAC) ciphers are automatically enabled by default on port 18082, creating a vulnerability where data integrity cannot be assured for TLS/SSL communications.
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>= 2.2.2, < 2.3.0aCVSS 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.
-
Check SANnav versionRetrieve the installed version of Brocade SANnav using the system management interface or command line tool provided by the productAffected if The installed version falls within >= 2.2.2 and < 2.3.0a
-
Verify port 18082 is activeCheck if port 18082 is listening on the SANnav server using a network port scanner or command such as netstat or nmapAffected if Port 18082 is open and accepting connections
-
Inspect TLS/SSL cipher configuration on port 18082Connect to port 18082 using an SSL/TLS testing tool such as openssl s_client or sslyze to retrieve the supported cipher suites and MAC algorithmsAffected if Weak MAC algorithms (such as MD5, SHA1, or NULL MAC) are listed among supported ciphers
-
Confirm weak MAC ciphers are enabledReview the SSL/TLS configuration files or management interface settings for port 18082 to verify which MAC algorithms are actually enabledAffected if Weak MAC ciphers are enabled in the configuration
The environment is affected if SANnav version is 2.2.2 or higher but below 2.3.0a AND port 18082 has weak MAC ciphers enabled in its TLS/SSL 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 data2.3.0a
Reconfigure SANnav to disable weak MAC ciphers on port 18082 and verify only strong MAC algorithms are enabled for TLS/SSL connections.
- 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-2024-29969 — 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-2024-29969 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