CVE-2024-3744
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 security issue was discovered in azure-file-csi-driver where an actor with access to the driver logs could observe service account tokens. These tokens could then potentially be exchanged with external cloud providers to access secrets stored in cloud vault solutions. Tokens are only logged when TokenRequests is configured in the CSIDriver object and the driver is set to run at log level 2 or greater via the -v flag.
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 azure-file-csi-driver leaks service account tokens into logs when TokenRequests is enabled in the CSIDriver object and logging verbosity is set to level 2 or higher. Attackers with log access can extract these tokens and exchange them with Azure for unauthorized cloud vault access.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/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.
-
Verify azure-file-csi-driver is installedRun 'kubectl get csidriver' to list CSI drivers or 'kubectl get pods -A | grep azurefile' to find driver pods. Also check your Kubernetes managed cluster addons.Affected if The azure-file-csi-driver is not deployed in your cluster.
-
Check CSIDriver object for TokenRequests configurationRun 'kubectl get csidriver azurefile.csi.azure.com -o yaml' (or your specific driver name) and examine the spec.tokenRequests field. If the field exists and contains values, TokenRequests is enabled.Affected if The CSIDriver spec.tokenRequests field is present and non-empty - this configuration enables token mounting and is required for the vulnerability.
-
Determine driver logging verbosity levelExamine the driver deployment or daemonset: 'kubectl get deployment -A -o yaml | grep -A5 azure-file-csi-driver' and look for the '-v' or '--v' flag in the container args. Common values: -v=1 (default), -v=2 (verbose), -v=5 (trace).Affected if The driver is running with verbosity level 2 or higher (such as -v=2, -v=4, or -v=5).
-
Inspect recent logs for exposed tokensRetrieve driver pod logs: 'kubectl logs -n kube-system -l app=azurefile-csi-driver --tail=1000'. Search for base64-encoded JWT patterns or 'Bearer' strings that may appear when verbosity >= 2.Affected if Service account tokens appear in the driver logs, confirming active token leakage.
You are affected if the azure-file-csi-driver is deployed with TokenRequests configured in the CSIDriver object AND the driver runs with logging verbosity level 2 or higher, allowing token exposure 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.
From vendor dataDisable TokenRequests in the CSIDriver configuration or ensure the driver runs with log level below 2 (-v flag set to 0 or 1) to prevent token leakage.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation1.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $1,696.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-3744 — 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-2024-3744 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