Apm ServerApplication · Elastic
CVE-2024-37286
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 · uneditedAPM server logs contain document body from a partially failed bulk index request. For example, in case of unavailable_shards_exception for a specific document, since the ES response line contains the document body, and that APM server logs the ES response line on error, the document is effectively logged.
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 APM server logs Elasticsearch response lines when bulk index requests partially fail (e.g., unavailable_shards_exception). Since the ES response includes the document body for the failed document, this sensitive data gets written to APM server logs, creating a data exposure vulnerability.
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
Apm ServerApplication
< 8.14.0CVSS 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
- 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.
-
Identify APM Server versionRun 'apm-server version' or check the installed package version (e.g., dpkg -l apm-server, rpm -qi apm-server, or check /usr/share/apm-server/bin/apm-server --version)Affected if Version is lower than 8.14.0
-
Verify Elasticsearch response logging is activeCheck APM Server configuration file (apm-server.yml or apm-server.yml.d/*.yml) for logging settings. Look for 'logging' section and verify logging levels are enabled (level: info, debug, or trace).Affected if Logging is enabled and set to a level that outputs ES response lines
-
Inspect logs for ES bulk request failuresReview APM Server logs (default: /var/log/apm-server/ or /var/log/apm/) for entries containing 'unavailable_shards_exception', 'bulk', or ES response error patternsAffected if Logs contain ES bulk index failure responses with document content
-
Search for document body exposure in logsGrep or search APM Server log files for patterns matching document JSON structures (e.g., nested braces with field:value pairs) immediately following ES error messages or failure indicatorsAffected if Log entries contain raw document bodies in the context of failed ES bulk requests
User is affected if APM Server version is below 8.14.0 AND logging is enabled AND ES bulk index failures with document bodies appear in logs.
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 · scoped8.14.0
Configure or modify APM server logging to exclude document bodies from ES response lines, or implement log filtering to redact document content before writing to logs.
8.14.0
- Upgrade APM Server to version 8.14.0 or later to remediate the sensitive information logging vulnerability
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Fix this in Apm Server
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-2024-37286 — 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-2024-37286 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