CVE-2024-38825
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 · uneditedThe salt.auth.pki module does not properly authenticate callers. The "password" field contains a public certificate which is validated against a CA certificate by the module. This is not pki authentication, as the caller does not need access to the corresponding private key for the authentication attempt to be accepted.
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 salt.auth.pki module in SaltStack accepts a public certificate in the 'password' field and validates it against a CA certificate, but fails to verify that the caller possesses the corresponding private key. This allows authentication using only the public certificate, which may be publicly available, bypassing true PKI authentication.
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
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/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.
-
Check if SaltStack Salt is installedRun 'salt --version' or 'salt-minion --version' to get the installed Salt versionAffected if The installed version falls within the affected range and has not been patched
-
Identify if PKI authentication is configuredLook for pki-related configuration in /etc/salt/master or /etc/salt/minion (e.g., 'auth_mode: pki' or client_cert settings in the master or minion config files)Affected if The pki authentication module is enabled in the Salt configuration
-
Locate the salt.auth.pki moduleFind the pki.py file in the Salt auth modules directory (typically /usr/lib/python*/site-packages/salt/auth/pki.py or similar path in your installation)Affected if The pki.py module exists and is being used for authentication
-
Inspect private key verification in the pki moduleExamine the pki.py file for code that verifies the caller possesses the corresponding private key (look for functions that handle the 'password' field and validate certificates against CA)Affected if The module validates the certificate against a CA but does not verify private key ownership (no challenge-response signing or TLS client auth validation)
-
Check authentication logs for public certificate usageReview Salt master logs for authentication attempts where only a public certificate was provided in the password field without private key proofAffected if Authentication succeeds with only a public certificate presented
You are affected if you are running a vulnerable Salt version with the pki authentication module enabled and the salt.auth.pki module does not verify private key possession before accepting a certificate for authentication.
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 dataImplement proper private key ownership verification in the salt.auth.pki module, such as challenge-response signing or proper TLS client authentication that validates key possession.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $7,808.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-38825 — 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-2024-38825 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