CVE-2024-36536
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 · uneditedInsecure permissions in fabedge v0.8.1 allows attackers to access sensitive data and escalate privileges by obtaining the service account's 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 · moderate confidenceIn fabedge v0.8.1, insecure file or directory permissions allow unauthorized local users to access service account tokens. Attackers who gain local access can read these tokens and use them to authenticate to the Kubernetes API, accessing sensitive data and escalating privileges within the cluster.
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= 0.8.1CVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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 Fabedge installation and versionRun 'fabctl version' or check the Fabedge deployment manifests for the version field. If using Kubernetes, check the Fabedge podspec for the image tag version.Affected if The installed version is Fabedge v0.8.1 or the specific version cannot be determined but Fabedge is present.
-
Locate service account token filesSearch for token files in Fabedge's data and runtime directories. Common paths include /var/run/secrets/kubernetes.io/serviceaccount/, /opt/fabedge/, or custom paths configured in Fabedge's configuration files.Affected if Service account token files exist in Fabedge's accessible directories.
-
Check file permissions on token filesRun 'ls -la' on identified token files and check the permission bits. Look for files with permissions like 644, 664, or any world-readable/group-readable setting.Affected if Token files have permissions that allow read access to non-owner users (e.g., permissions include 'r--r--r--', 'rw-r--r--', or similar).
-
Check directory permissions on token-containing directoriesRun 'ls -ld' on directories containing the token files. Verify the directory permissions are not world-readable or group-readable.Affected if Directories containing tokens have overly permissive access (e.g., 'drwxr-xr-x' or similar that allows unauthorized users to traverse or list).
-
Test unauthorized user accessIf possible, switch to a non-privileged local user account and attempt to read the token files using 'cat' or 'read' commands on the identified paths.Affected if A non-owner, non-admin user can successfully read the service account token files.
A user is affected if Fabedge v0.8.1 is installed AND service account token files or their directories have permissions that allow access by unauthorized local users.
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 dataRestrict file and directory permissions to ensure service account tokens are only accessible to the intended processes (e.g., chmod 600 on token files, proper ownership). Apply least-privilege RBAC policies and audit all sensitive file access patterns.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $3,728.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-36536 — 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-2024-36536 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