CVE-2024-51447
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 · uneditedA vulnerability has been identified in Polarion V2310 (All versions), Polarion V2404 (All versions < V2404.2). The login implementation of the affected application contains an observable response discrepancy vulnerability when validating usernames. This could allow an unauthenticated remote attacker to distinguish between valid and invalid usernames.
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 Polarion login implementation contains a user enumeration vulnerability where the application returns different responses (timing, error messages, or behavior) when valid vs invalid usernames are submitted. This allows unauthenticated attackers to discover valid user accounts through brute-force or enumeration techniques.
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>= 2404, < 2410= 2310CVSS 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
- Low
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/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 installed Polarion versionCheck the Polarion application version through the admin interface, installation directory, or product documentation. The version is typically visible in the 'About' section or can be found in version files within the Polarion installation directory.Affected if The installed version is 2310, or falls in the range >= 2404 and < 2410.
-
Confirm login endpoint is exposedVerify that the Polarion login page (typically at /polarion/ or /polarion/login) is accessible from the network. Check firewall rules and access controls to determine if unauthenticated access to the login functionality is possible.Affected if The login page is accessible to unauthenticated network users.
-
Observe login response behaviorSubmit two test requests to the login endpoint using (1) a known-valid username format and (2) a clearly invalid random username. Compare the HTTP response codes, error messages, and response timing between the two attempts.Affected if The responses differ between valid and invalid usernames in message content, format, or response time.
-
Review application logs for user enumeration indicatorsExamine Polarion server logs for patterns indicating repeated login attempts with different usernames, focusing on entries that show different handling of valid versus invalid usernames.Affected if Logs show inconsistent error handling or timing differences when invalid usernames are submitted.
You are affected if Polarion Alm version 2310 or versions 2404 through 2409 are installed AND the login endpoint is accessible to unauthenticated users with observable differences in how valid versus invalid usernames are handled.
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 · scoped2410
Implement uniform response handling for both valid and invalid usernames, including identical error messages and consistent response timing, regardless of username validity.
V2404.2 or later (V2410 recommended); V2310 - contact vendor for supported version
- 1. Identify the current installed version of Polarion Alm
- 2. For Polarion V2404.x versions: Upgrade to V2404.2 or later (V2410 or later recommended)
- 3. For Polarion V2310: Contact Siemens for patch/supported version information as no fixed version was specified in the advisory
- 4. After upgrade, verify the login implementation no longer reveals username validity through response differences
- 5. Test with both valid and invalid usernames to confirm uniform error responses
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-51447 — 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-2024-51447 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