CxfApplication · Apache
CVE-2024-32007
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 · uneditedAn improper input validation of the p2c parameter in the Apache CXF JOSE code before 4.0.5, 3.6.4 and 3.5.9 allows an attacker to perform a denial of service attack by specifying a large value for this parameter in a token.
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 confidenceApache CXF's JOSE (JSON Object Signing and Encryption) implementation lacks proper input validation on the p2c parameter. An attacker can embed an excessively large value for this parameter in a JWT or JOSE token, causing the server to allocate disproportionate computational resources during token processing, resulting in denial of service.
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
CxfApplication
< 3.5.9>= 3.6.0, < 3.6.4>= 4.0.0, < 4.0.5CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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 Apache CXF installation and versionLocate the CXF library files (cxf-core.jar, cxf*.*.jar) in your application or runtime environment, then examine the jar filename or MANIFEST.MF for the exact version numberAffected if The installed version falls within < 3.5.9, >= 3.6.0 and < 3.6.4, or >= 4.0.0 and < 4.0.5
-
Determine if JOSE/JWT processing is enabledReview your application configuration for JOSE token handling: check for dependencies on cxf-rt-security, cxf-rt-rs-security-jose, or similar CXF security modules, and examine code or config that creates JwtToken, JwsToken, or JoseWidget instancesAffected if Your application uses CXF's JOSE implementation to process incoming JWT or JOSE tokens
-
Identify token validation endpoints and flowsLocate the application code or configuration that validates incoming tokens, typically in filter, interceptor, or authentication logic that calls token parsing methods such as JwtTokenReader, JwsTokenVerifier, or similar CXF security classesAffected if Untrusted JWT/JOSE tokens reach your CXF JOSE processing logic without prior validation at a gateway layer
-
Check for existing p2c parameter validationSearch your token processing code or any custom security filters for explicit validation or bounds checking on the p2c claim (also known as piecetime count or padding count) before token verificationAffected if No bounds checking exists on p2c and tokens with large p2c values can reach the CXF JOSE verifier
You are affected if your environment runs a vulnerable Apache CXF version (within the ranges above) and processes untrusted JWT/JOSE tokens through CXF's JOSE implementation without gateway-level p2c validation.
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 · scoped3.5.93.6.44.0.5
Upgrade to Apache CXF versions 4.0.5, 3.6.4, or 3.5.9 or later which contain bounds checking on the p2c parameter. Alternatively, implement input validation at a gateway or application layer to reject tokens with abnormally large p2c values before they reach the JOSE processing logic.
Upgrade to CXF 4.0.5+ (recommended) or the latest 3.6.x/3.5.x patch release
- Identify the current Apache CXF version in use by checking project dependencies (Maven pom.xml, Gradle build file, or JAR manifest)
- Determine which version branch is currently in use (3.5.x, 3.6.x, or 4.0.x)
- Upgrade to the fixed version for the respective branch: 3.5.9 or higher, 3.6.4 or higher, or 4.0.5 or higher
- Update the dependency in build configuration (pom.xml: update <version> to fixed release; Gradle: update implementation/runtimeVersion)
- Rebuild and test the application to verify the upgrade does not break existing functionality
- Verify the fix by testing with tokens containing various p2c parameter values to ensure proper validation
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Fix this in Cxf
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $1,904.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-32007 — 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-2024-32007 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