CVE-2024-39830
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 · uneditedMattermost versions 9.8.x <= 9.8.0, 9.7.x <= 9.7.4, 9.6.x <= 9.6.2 and 9.5.x <= 9.5.5, when shared channels are enabled, fail to use constant time comparison for remote cluster tokens which allows an attacker to retrieve the remote cluster token via a timing attack during remote cluster token comparison.
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 confidenceMattermost versions 9.5.x through 9.8.x contain a timing side-channel vulnerability in the remote cluster token comparison logic used by shared channels. The application uses a non-constant-time string comparison (e.g., == or !=) instead of a constant-time comparison function, allowing an attacker to incrementally deduce the remote cluster token by measuring response time differences during authentication attempts.
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>= 9.5.0, < 9.5.6>= 9.6.0, < 9.6.3>= 9.7.0, < 9.7.5>= 9.8.0, < 9.8.1CVSS 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
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/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 Mattermost server versionRun the command `mattermost version` or check the system console under About > Mattermost to view the currently installed version numberAffected if The version falls within 9.5.0 to 9.5.5, 9.6.0 to 9.6.2, 9.7.0 to 9.7.4, or 9.8.0 to 9.8.0 (i.e., any version from 9.5.0 up to but not including 9.5.6, 9.6.3, 9.7.5, or 9.8.1)
-
Confirm shared channels feature statusCheck if the Shared Channels feature is enabled in the system console under Channels > Shared Channels, or query the server configuration via the Mattermost API or config fileAffected if Shared channels are enabled and the server is configured to act as a remote cluster node with a shared channel token configured
-
Locate remote cluster token configurationInspect the Mattermost configuration file (config.json) or the environment variables for any configured RemoteCluster or SharedChannel settings that include an authentication tokenAffected if A remote cluster token is defined in the configuration for shared channel synchronization between Mattermost instances
You are affected if your Mattermost server version is 9.5.0 through 9.5.5, 9.6.0 through 9.6.2, 9.7.0 through 9.7.4, or 9.8.0, AND shared channels with remote cluster communication are enabled with a token configured.
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 · scoped9.5.69.6.39.7.5
Upgrade Mattermost to versions 9.8.1, 9.7.5, 9.6.3, or 9.5.6 or later. If immediate patching is not possible, consider disabling shared channels or restricting network exposure to the remote cluster interface.
Upgrade to 9.5.6, 9.6.3, 9.7.5, or 9.8.1 depending on your current version branch
- Identify current Mattermost version by checking the system console or running 'mattermost version'
- Determine which version branch you are on (9.5.x, 9.6.x, 9.7.x, or 9.8.x)
- For version 9.5.x: upgrade to 9.5.6 or later
- For version 9.6.x: upgrade to 9.6.3 or later
- For version 9.7.x: upgrade to 9.7.5 or later
- For version 9.8.x: upgrade to 9.8.1 or later
- After upgrade, verify the version via the system console or CLI
- If shared channels are not needed, consider disabling them as a temporary mitigation until upgrade is complete
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $1,664.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-39830 — 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-2024-39830 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