CVE-2024-40681
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 MQ 9.1 LTS, 9.2 LTS, 9.3 LTS, 9.3 CD, 9.4 LTS, and 9.4 CD could allow an authenticated user in a specifically defined role, to bypass security restrictions and execute actions against the queue manager.
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 · moderate confidenceIBM MQ contains an authorization bypass vulnerability where an authenticated user in a specific role can bypass security restrictions and execute privileged actions against the queue manager. The vulnerability stems from improper validation of role-based access controls, allowing certain authenticated principals to circumvent defined security policies.
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, <= 2.0.25>= 2.2.0, <= 2.2.2>= 2.3.0, <= 2.3.3>= 2.4.0, <= 2.4.8>= 3.1.0, <= 3.1.3>= 3.2.0, <= 3.2.3= 3.0.0= 3.0.1= 9.2.0.1= 9.2.0.2= 9.2.0.4= 9.2.0.5= 9.2.0.6= 9.2.3.0= 9.2.4.0= 9.2.5.0= 9.3.0.0= 9.3.0.1= 9.3.0.3= 9.3.0.4CVSS 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
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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 MQ Operator versionRun 'kubectl get deployment -n ibm-mq ibm-mq' or check operator version via 'kubectl get operators -A' and note the version fieldAffected if Version matches >= 2.0.0 <= 2.0.25, >= 2.2.0 <= 2.2.2, >= 2.3.0 <= 2.3.3, >= 2.4.0 <= 2.4.8, >= 3.1.0 <= 3.1.3, >= 3.2.0 <= 3.2.3, = 3.0.0, or = 3.0.1
-
Identify MQ Advanced Container Image versionCheck image tags in Kubernetes deployments or pods running MQ: run 'kubectl get pods -A -o jsonpath={.items[*].spec.containers[*].image}' and inspect the image tags for versions like 9.2.x or 9.3.xAffected if Image version equals 9.2.0.1, 9.2.0.2, 9.2.0.4, 9.2.0.5, 9.2.0.6, 9.2.3.0, 9.2.4.0, 9.2.5.0, 9.3.0.0, 9.3.0.1, 9.3.0.3, or 9.3.0.4
-
Review MQ security configurationCheck queue manager security settings via MQ commands: run 'DISPLAY AUTHINFO' and review IAM and authorization configurations defined in the queue managerAffected if Role-based access control definitions exist and unaudited elevated role bindings are present for authenticated users
You are affected if either the IBM MQ Operator version or the MQ Advanced Container Image version matches one of the listed vulnerable versions, and role-based access controls are configured in the environment.
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 dataApply the relevant IBM MQ security patch (consult IBM Fix Central for CVE-2024-40681) and review role configurations to ensure only intended users possess elevated privileges. After patching, validate that security restrictions function as designed.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing12.0 h
- Review / QA6.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $11,776.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-40681 — 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-2024-40681 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