CVE-2024-38472
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 · uneditedSSRF in Apache HTTP Server on Windows allows to potentially leak NTLM hashes to a malicious server via SSRF and malicious requests or content Users are recommended to upgrade to version 2.4.60 which fixes this issue. Note: Existing configurations that access UNC paths will have to configure new directive "UNCList" to allow access during request processing.
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 confidenceThis is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in Apache HTTP Server when running on Windows systems. The flaw allows attackers to potentially leak NTLM hashes to a malicious server through specially crafted SSRF requests or content, likely exploiting how Apache handles UNC path resolution on Windows.
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>= 2.4.0, < 2.4.60= 9CVSS 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 the operating systemRun 'systeminfo | findstr /B /C:"OS Name"' or check system properties to confirm Windows is in useAffected if The server is not running Windows (this vulnerability only affects Windows systems)
-
Determine installed Apache HTTP Server versionRun 'httpd -v' (Windows) or 'apache2 -v' to get the server version, or check the Apache error log startup bannerAffected if The installed version is 2.4.0 through 2.4.59 inclusive (versions below 2.4.60 are affected)
-
Verify if the server processes requests involving UNC pathsExamine Apache configuration files (httpd.conf, included .conf files) for references to UNC paths in the format \\servername\sharename or the UNCList directive, and check if any VirtualHost or location blocks handle URLs that could resolve to UNC pathsAffected if UNC path handling is configured or possible (the vulnerability exploits UNC path resolution on Windows to leak NTLM hashes)
-
Check for NTLM authentication configurationReview Apache configuration for 'NTLMAuthoritative off' or related NTLM/Windows authentication modules (mod_auth_ntlm, mod_auth_sspi) that enable Windows authenticationAffected if NTLM or Windows-integrated authentication is enabled (this is what gets leaked to the attacker's server)
-
Review external content or proxy configurationsCheck if the server is configured as a proxy (mod_proxy) or uses 'ProxyPass' directives that could be triggered with attacker-controlled URLs, or if mod_rewrite with [P] flag is usedAffected if The server can be induced to make outbound requests to attacker-specified URLs (the SSRF vector that triggers UNC resolution)
The server is affected if it runs on Windows with Apache HTTP Server versions 2.4.0-2.4.59, has UNC path handling enabled or accessible, and uses NTLM authentication or processes requests that could trigger outbound connections to attacker-controlled locations.
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 · scoped2.4.60
Upgrade Apache HTTP Server to version 2.4.60 or later. If the configuration accesses UNC paths, implement the new UNCList directive to control and restrict UNC access during request processing.
Apache HTTP Server 2.4.60
- 1. Identify all Apache HTTP Server instances running on Windows that are version 2.4.0 through 2.4.59
- 2. Schedule a maintenance window for the upgrade process
- 3. Download Apache HTTP Server version 2.4.60 from the official Apache distribution site (httpd.apache.org)
- 4. Backup the current Apache configuration files (httpd.conf and included configuration files)
- 5. Stop the Apache HTTP Server service
- 6. Install Apache HTTP Server 2.4.60
- 7. Restore the backed-up configuration files
- 8. If using UNC paths in your configuration, add the new 'UNCList' directive to allow access during request processing
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- 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-2024-38472 — 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-2024-38472 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