Zephyr Project ManagerWordPress extension · Zephyr One
CVE-2024-43322
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 · uneditedAuthorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key vulnerability in Dylan James Zephyr Project Manager.This issue affects Zephyr Project Manager: from n/a through 3.3.100.
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 confidenceAn Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key vulnerability in Zephyr Project Manager allows attackers to manipulate a key parameter (such as an ID or token) to access unauthorized resources or functionality. With a CVSS 9.8 rating, this critical flaw is exploitable over the network without authentication or user interaction, potentially allowing full compromise of the application's authorization controls.
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
Zephyr Project ManagerWordPress extension
< 3.3.101CVSS 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
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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 Zephyr Project Manager installationSearch for Zephyr Project Manager files, services, or web applications on the system. Common locations include /opt/zephyr, /var/www/zephyr, or check running services for 'zephyr' or port 8080/8443 if it's a web application.Affected if Zephyr Project Manager is installed and accessible on the system
-
Determine installed versionLocate the version file or check the application metadata. Common locations: version file in installation directory, package.json, or query the application's API endpoint /about or /version if available.Affected if The installed version is below 3.3.101 (e.g., 3.3.100, 3.3.0, or any version < 3.3.101)
-
Check for exposed web interface or APIIdentify if the application exposes HTTP/HTTPS endpoints. Review web server configuration files, check listening ports (commonly 8080, 8443, or 443), and enumerate accessible URLs that handle resource identifiers.Affected if The application web interface or REST API is exposed over the network with endpoints that accept user-controlled parameters like IDs or tokens
-
Identify vulnerable parameter handlingReview application logs, access logs, or API request patterns to see if endpoints accept ID or token parameters in the URL query string, path, or request body without proper authorization validation.Affected if Endpoints accept user-supplied keys/IDs to access resources without verified authorization checks
-
Look for unauthorized access indicatorsExamine application logs, audit logs, or access logs for anomalous requests where users accessed resources outside their expected scope. Search for repeated requests with sequential IDs or requests for resources belonging to other users.Affected if Logs show access patterns indicating users accessed resources they should not have permission to view or modify
The environment is affected if Zephyr Project Manager version 3.3.101 or higher is not installed and the application exposes a web interface or API accepting user-controlled parameters for resource access.
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 data3.3.101
Implement proper server-side authorization checks that validate user permissions against the requested resource, ensuring user-controlled parameters cannot bypass access controls. Upgrade to the latest version of Zephyr Project Manager beyond version 3.3.100 if a patch is available.
Fix this in Zephyr Project Manager
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing10.0 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 $9,504.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-43322 — 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-2024-43322 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