CVE-2024-3386
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 incorrect string comparison vulnerability in Palo Alto Networks PAN-OS software prevents Predefined Decryption Exclusions from functioning as intended. This can cause traffic destined for domains that are not specified in Predefined Decryption Exclusions to be unintentionally excluded from decryption.
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 confidenceAn incorrect string comparison vulnerability in PAN-OS prevents Predefined Decryption Exclusions from functioning as intended. Due to faulty string comparison logic, traffic to domains NOT specified in Predefined Decryption Exclusions is unintentionally excluded from decryption, potentially leaving sensitive traffic unencrypted when it should be decrypted for inspection.
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>= 9.0.0, < 9.0.16>= 9.1.0, < 9.1.17>= 10.0.0, < 10.0.13>= 10.1.0, <= 10.1.8>= 10.2.0, < 10.2.4>= 11.0.0, < 11.0.1= 9.0.17= 10.1.9= 10.2.4= 11.0.1CVSS 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
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/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.
-
Check PAN-OS versionAccess the firewall web interface under Device > Setup > Operations or use 'show system info' CLI command to confirm the installed PAN-OS versionAffected if The installed version falls within any of these ranges: 9.0.0-9.0.16, 9.1.0-9.1.17, 10.0.0-10.0.12, 10.1.0-10.1.8, 10.2.0-10.2.3, 11.0.0; or equals exactly 9.0.17, 10.1.9, 10.2.4, or 11.0.1
-
Verify Decryption is enabledNavigate to Policies > Decryption in the firewall GUI or use 'show decryption policy' CLI command to confirm decryption policies are activeAffected if Decryption policies are configured and enabled on the firewall
-
Confirm Predefined Decryption Exclusions are in useCheck Objects > Decryption > Decryption Exclusion List in the GUI or use 'show decryption exclusions' CLI command to see if predefined exclusions are definedAffected if Any predefined decryption exclusion entries are configured
-
Analyze traffic logs for unintended exclusion patternsReview Traffic logs and filter for SSL/TLS traffic. Cross-reference with your defined decryption policy to identify traffic flows that should be decrypted but are bypassing decryptionAffected if Traffic logs show SSL/TLS sessions that match your decryption policy conditions yet are not being decrypted, indicating the string comparison bug is affecting your environment
You are affected if your PAN-OS version is in the listed vulnerable range AND you have decryption policies enabled with predefined exclusions configured, especially if traffic logs show unexpected traffic bypassing decryption when it should be inspected.
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 · scoped9.0.169.1.1710.0.13
Apply the PAN-OS vendor patch when available. In the interim, audit custom decryption exclusion policies and verify that traffic is being decrypted as intended using firewall logs and traffic analysis.
PAN-OS 9.0.16, 9.1.17, 10.0.13, or 10.1.9 (or later versions within each branch)
- 1. Identify the current PAN-OS version running on the affected device
- 2. Determine the appropriate upgrade path based on the current version and deployment requirements
- 3. Review Palo Alto Networks release notes for the target fixed version to understand changes and requirements
- 4. Create a backup of the current configuration
- 5. Download the appropriate PAN-OS upgrade image from Palo Alto Networks support portal
- 6. Upgrade the device to the fixed version (9.0.16, 9.1.17, 10.0.13, or 10.1.9 or higher)
- 7. After upgrade, verify that Predefined Decryption Exclusions are functioning correctly
- 8. Monitor traffic logs to confirm decryption is being applied as expected
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $4,160.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-3386 — 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-2024-3386 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