CVE-2024-51980
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 · uneditedAn unauthenticated attacker may perform a limited server side request forgery (SSRF), forcing the target device to open a TCP connection to an arbitrary port number on an arbitrary IP address. This SSRF leverages the WS-Addressing ReplyTo element in a Web service (HTTP TCP port 80) SOAP request. The attacker can not control the data sent in the SSRF connection, nor can the attacker receive any data back. This SSRF is suitable for TCP port scanning of an internal network when the Web service (HTTP TCP port 80) is exposed across a network segment.
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 confidenceThis is an unauthenticated SSRF vulnerability in a Web service (HTTP port 80) that exploits the WS-Addressing ReplyTo element in SOAP requests. An attacker can force the target device to open TCP connections to arbitrary IP addresses and ports, though they cannot control the payload or receive responses back. This is specifically useful for internal network reconnaissance and port scanning.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
CVSS 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 SOAP web service on HTTPCheck if port 80 is listening and identify if it serves SOAP/WSDL endpoints (look for /wsdl, /soap, or XML-based responses with SOAP envelopes)Affected if A SOAP-based web service is exposed on HTTP port 80
-
Confirm WS-Addressing supportSend a SOAP request with a WS-Addressing ReplyTo header containing a non-localhost address (e.g., <wsa:ReplyTo><wsa:Address>http://example.com</wsa:Address></wsa:ReplyTo>) and observe if the server accepts or processes itAffected if The service accepts and processes WS-Addressing ReplyTo headers without rejecting arbitrary addresses
-
Check product versionRetrieve the installed product version from the service banner, admin interface, or system information (consult vendor documentation for version location)Affected if The installed version falls within any affected range provided by the vendor or is an unpatched release
-
Verify network exposureConfirm the SOAP web service is accessible over HTTP (port 80) from untrusted networksAffected if The service is reachable on port 80 from networks where untrusted actors can send requests
The environment is affected if a SOAP web service on HTTP port 80 processes WS-Addressing ReplyTo headers with arbitrary addresses and the product version is unpatched.
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 validation to reject or sanitize WS-Addressing ReplyTo headers containing arbitrary addresses, or disable WS-Addressing functionality if not required. Network segmentation can limit exposure of internal services to reconnaissance.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-51980 — 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-2024-51980 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