CVE-2024-36492
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 · uneditedMattermost versions 9.9.x <= 9.9.0, 9.5.x <= 9.5.6, 9.7.x <= 9.7.5, 9.8.x <= 9.8.1 fail to disallow the modification of local users when syncing users in shared channels. which allows a malicious remote to overwrite an existing local user.
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 confidenceMattermost fails to validate that remote user sync operations cannot modify existing local user accounts when syncing users in shared channels, allowing a malicious remote Mattermost instance to overwrite local user profiles.
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>= 9.5.0, < 9.5.7>= 9.7.0, < 9.7.6>= 9.8.0, < 9.8.2= 9.9.0CVSS 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
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:L
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 installed Mattermost versionRun `mattermost version` CLI or query the /api/v4/system/config endpoint, or view the version in the System Console under AboutAffected if Version is 9.5.0-9.5.6, 9.7.0-9.7.5, 9.8.0-9.8.1, or exactly 9.9.0
-
Confirm shared channels feature is enabledNavigate to System Console > Shared Channels, or check the EnableSharedChannels setting in config.jsonAffected if Shared Channels feature is turned on in the configuration
-
Identify remote Mattermost instancesIn System Console go to Shared Channels > Remote Clusters, or query /api/v4/remote_clusters to list connected remote Mattermost instancesAffected if One or more remote Mattermost instances are connected via shared channels
You are affected if you run a vulnerable version AND have shared channels enabled with any remote Mattermost instances connected.
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 · scoped9.5.79.7.69.8.2
Update Mattermost to versions 9.9.1, 9.5.7, 9.7.6, 9.8.2 or later, and review shared channel configurations to ensure only trusted instances are connected.
Upgrade to 9.5.7 (for 9.5.x), 9.7.6 (for 9.7.x), 9.8.2 (for 9.8.x), or 9.9.1+ (for 9.9.x)
- 1. Identify the currently installed Mattermost version using the system console or CLI (mmctl version)
- 2. Based on your current version, plan upgrade to the appropriate fixed release: for 9.5.x upgrade to 9.5.7, for 9.7.x upgrade to 9.7.6, for 9.8.x upgrade to 9.8.2, for 9.9.x upgrade to 9.9.1 or later
- 3. Backup the Mattermost database and configuration files before upgrading
- 4. Follow Mattermost upgrade documentation for your deployment method (tarball, Docker, or Helm chart)
- 5. After upgrade, verify the server starts successfully and test shared channel functionality
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-36492 — 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-2024-36492 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