CVE-2024-38325
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 · uneditedIBM Storage Defender 2.0.0 through 2.0.7 on-prem defender-sensor-cmd CLI could allow a remote attacker to obtain sensitive information, caused by sending network requests over an insecure channel. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability to obtain sensitive information using man in the middle techniques.
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 defender-sensor-cmd CLI component in IBM Storage Defender versions 2.0.0 through 2.0.7 transmits sensitive data over an unencrypted network channel, enabling remote attackers positioned between the client and server to intercept communications and obtain sensitive information via man-in-the-middle techniques.
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>= 2.0.0, < 2.0.8CVSS 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
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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 IBM Storage Defender installationLocate the IBM Storage Defender installation and retrieve its version number using vendor-provided tools or package managersAffected if Installed version is 2.0.0 through 2.0.7 (versions prior to 2.0.8)
-
Verify defender-sensor-cmd component presenceCheck if the defender-sensor-cmd CLI component is installed or active in the environmentAffected if The defender-sensor-cmd component is present and operational
-
Examine network communication configurationInspect the configuration files or settings used by defender-sensor-cmd to determine whether network communications are encrypted (look for TLS/SSL settings, certificate configurations, or encrypted protocol settings)Affected if Network communications are configured to use unencrypted protocols or no encryption is specified
-
Verify encryption settings in CLI configReview the CLI configuration files or environment variables for encryption-related parameters (such as enableTLS, useSSL, or similar flags)Affected if Encryption settings are disabled, absent, or set to false/unencrypted values
-
Test network traffic for encryptionCapture and inspect network traffic between the CLI and server endpoints to verify whether data is transmitted in cleartext or encryptedAffected if Sensitive data is transmitted in cleartext without TLS/SSL encryption
The environment is affected if IBM Storage Defender version 2.0.0 through 2.0.7 is installed with the defender-sensor-cmd component and network communications are not encrypted.
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 data2.0.8
Update IBM Storage Defender to version 2.0.8 or later to obtain the vendor patch. If immediate patching is not feasible, ensure all network communication occurs over properly encrypted channels such as TLS/SSL or VPN tunnels.
- Consultation3.0 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 $3,408.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-38325 — 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-2024-38325 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