dbcve.org
Resource Allocation Without LimitsWeakness · CWE-770

CVE-2024-52796

MEDIUM · 5.3 CVSS v3.1 Published 2024-11-20
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
62/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
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
Password Pusher, an open source application to communicate sensitive information over the web, comes with a configurable rate limiter. In versions prior to v1.49.0, the rate limiter could be bypassed by forging proxy headers allowing bad actors to send unlimited traffic to the site potentially causing a denial of service. In v1.49.0, a fix was implemented to only authorize proxies on local IPs which resolves this issue. As a workaround, one may add rules to one's proxy and/or firewall to not accept external proxy headers such as `X-Forwarded-*` from clients.

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 confidence

Password Pusher versions prior to v1.49.0 had a rate limiter that could be bypassed by forging proxy headers (such as X-Forwarded-*). This allowed attackers to send unlimited traffic to the site, potentially causing a denial of service. The fix in v1.49.0 restricts proxy authorization to local IPs only.

MitigationUpgrade to v1.49.0 or later, or implement firewall/proxy rules to reject external X-Forwarded-* headers to prevent header spoofing.

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
None
Integrity
None
Availability
Low

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

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 Password Pusher installation
    Locate the Password Pusher application in your environment - check running processes, Docker containers, or installed packages that contain 'pwpush' or 'password pusher'
    Affected if Password Pusher is not present in your environment
  2. Determine installed version
    Check the version of Password Pusher by inspecting the application banner, Docker image tag, Gemfile, package.json, or running 'git log' if from source. Common locations: Docker container labels, /opt/pwpush/config/environment, or the application's root directory
    Affected if The installed version is prior to v1.49.0 (e.g., v1.48.0, v1.47.0, etc.)
  3. Verify reverse proxy configuration
    Examine your infrastructure for any reverse proxy (nginx, Apache, HAProxy, cloud load balancer, AWS ALB, etc.) sitting in front of Password Pusher. Check proxy configuration files and the application's environment variables for TRUSTED_PROXY settings
    Affected if A reverse proxy exists and X-Forwarded-* headers from external sources are being trusted
  4. Test header spoofing possibility
    Send a test request to the Password Pusher endpoint with a forged X-Forwarded-For header (e.g., X-Forwarded-For: 10.255.0.1) from an external IP and observe if the request is treated as coming from that internal IP. Compare rate limit behavior between requests with and without the header
    Affected if The application accepts and trusts X-Forwarded-* headers from non-local/non-proxy IPs, allowing rate limits to be bypassed

You are affected if Password Pusher version is prior to v1.49.0 AND the application sits behind a proxy that trusts X-Forwarded-* headers from external sources.

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.

dbcve · scoped
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Upgrade to v1.49.0 or later, or implement firewall/proxy rules to reject external X-Forwarded-* headers to prevent header spoofing.

Recommended fix High confidence

v1.49.0

  1. Upgrade Password Pusher to version v1.49.0 or later to apply the rate limiter fix
  2. As an alternative mitigation (if upgrade is not possible), configure your reverse proxy and/or firewall to reject X-Forwarded-* headers from external clients

Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation2.0 h
  • Testing2.0 h
  • Review / QA1.0 h
7.0 hours of engineering $1,240
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,984.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-52796 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

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-2024-52796 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