Mage AiApplication · Mage
CVE-2024-45187
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 · uneditedGuest users in the Mage AI framework that remain logged in after their accounts are deleted, are mistakenly given high privileges and specifically given access to remotely execute arbitrary code through the Mage AI terminal server
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 confidenceMage AI framework fails to properly invalidate sessions when user accounts are deleted, causing orphaned guest user sessions to retain active authentication. These stale sessions are incorrectly granted elevated privileges that enable arbitrary remote code execution through the terminal server interface.
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
Mage AiApplication
all versionsCVSS 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 session storage mechanismLocate where Mage AI stores user session data - typically in database tables, Redis, or file-based storage. Look for session records associated with deleted user accounts.Affected if Active session records exist for user IDs that no longer exist in the user database
-
Verify session invalidation on user deletionCreate a test user, establish an authenticated session, delete the user account, then attempt to use the existing session token to access the system.Affected if The stale session token remains valid and grants access after the associated user account has been deleted
-
Check terminal server access controlsExamine the terminal server interface configuration to determine if session authentication relies on cached permissions or performs real-time validation against the current user database.Affected if Terminal server accepts session tokens from deleted users and grants elevated privileges based on stale cached credentials
-
Enumerate active sessions for orphaned accountsQuery the session repository to list all active sessions and cross-reference the associated user IDs against the current user directory.Affected if Any active sessions are mapped to user accounts that have been deleted from the system
The environment is affected if orphaned sessions from deleted user accounts remain active and retain elevated privileges through the terminal server interface.
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 immediate session invalidation upon user account deletion and enforce real-time privilege validation for terminal server access rather than relying on cached session permissions.
Fix this in Mage Ai
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $7,040.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-45187 — 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-2024-45187 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