Mirror RegistryApplication · Redhat
CVE-2024-3623
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 when using mirror-registry to install Quay. It uses a default database secret key, which is stored in plain-text format in one of the configuration template files. This issue may lead to all instances of Quay deployed using mirror-registry to have the same database secret key. This flaw allows a malicious actor to access sensitive information from Quay's database.
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 confidenceThe mirror-registry tool used to install Quay container registry contains a hardcoded default database secret key stored in plain-text within a configuration template file. All Quay instances deployed using mirror-registry share this identical default key, enabling attackers who discover it to access sensitive data in the Quay database.
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
Mirror RegistryApplication
all versionsCVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/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 if mirror-registry is installedDetermine if the Red Hat Mirror Registry tool is present in the environment by checking for the mirror-registry binary or associated Quay deploymentAffected if mirror-registry is deployed in the environment
-
Locate the database configurationFind configuration files related to the Quay database setup - typically in the installation directory or config bundle used by mirror-registryAffected if configuration files exist and contain database credentials
-
Inspect database secret key configurationExamine the configuration for a field related to database secret key, password, or encryption key - look for values that appear hardcoded or identical across deploymentsAffected if a hardcoded or default database secret key is found in the configuration instead of a unique per-deployment key
-
Compare against known default keyIf a hardcoded key value is found, check whether it matches the default key that would be shared across all mirror-registry installationsAffected if the database secret key matches the default hardcoded value used by mirror-registry installations
If Red Hat Mirror Registry is deployed and is using the default hardcoded database secret key from the configuration template, the environment is vulnerable to CVE-2024-3623.
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 dataGenerate and apply unique database secret keys for each Quay deployment instance by modifying the mirror-registry configuration to use dynamically generated keys, and rotate any keys that may have been exposed.
Fix this in Mirror Registry
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-3623 — 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-2024-3623 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