Incorrect AuthorizationWeakness · CWE-863

CVE-2024-52732

CRITICAL · 9.1 CVSS v3.1 Published 2024-12-02
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
100/100
Remediation priority · Urgent
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
Incorrect access control in wms-Warehouse management system-zeqp v2.20.9.1 due to the token value of the zeqp system being reused.

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 confidence

In the wms-Warehouse management system-zeqp v2.20.9.1, the authentication token mechanism allows token value reuse, enabling attackers to replay previously issued tokens to gain unauthorized access to the system. This incorrect access control stems from insufficient token validation, where tokens are not properly invalidated after use or expiration.

MitigationImplement proper token lifecycle management including expiration, single-use validation, and secure invalidation. Replace the token mechanism with standards like JWT with short expiration times or implement server-side token tracking.

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
High
Integrity
High
Availability
None

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify installed version of wms-zeqp
    Locate the version information for the wms-warehouse management system-zeqp installation. This may be in the application header, a version file in the installation directory, or returned by an API endpoint like /api/version or /about. Compare this to the affected version v2.20.9.1.
    Affected if The installed version matches or is below v2.20.9.1 and the token reuse vulnerability has not been patched.
  2. Test token replay with a previously used token
    Obtain a valid authentication token from the system (for example, by logging in). Then attempt to use that same token again to access protected endpoints. Record whether the request succeeds or fails.
    Affected if The system accepts and validates the reused token, allowing access without generating a new token.
  3. Test token expiration validation
    Obtain a token and either wait for any defined expiration period to pass, or manually inspect the token to determine its expiration timestamp. Attempt to use the token after the expiration time has elapsed.
    Affected if The system accepts and validates expired tokens, allowing continued access beyond the token validity period.
  4. Inspect token validation logic
    If code access is available, review the authentication module (typically in the login or token validation handler) to verify whether the system checks token uniqueness, maintains a token usage ledger, or implements single-use validation. Look for any server-side tracking of issued tokens.
    Affected if The code lacks server-side token tracking, single-use validation, or proper invalidation logic.

A user is affected if they are running wms-zeqp version v2.20.9.1 (or an unpatched earlier version) and the system permits reuse of the same authentication token or accepts expired tokens for access.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Implement proper token lifecycle management including expiration, single-use validation, and secure invalidation. Replace the token mechanism with standards like JWT with short expiration times or implement server-side token tracking.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation16.0 h
  • Testing8.0 h
  • Review / QA4.0 h
32.0 hours of engineering $5,600
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $8,960.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-52732 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2024-52732 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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