CVE-2024-52975
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 issue was identified in Fleet Server where Fleet policies that could contain sensitive information were logged on INFO and ERROR log levels. The nature of the sensitive information largely depends on the integrations enabled.
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 confidenceFleet Server logged sensitive information from Fleet policies at INFO and ERROR log levels, exposing credentials, API keys, tokens, or other secrets depending on which integrations were enabled in the policies. This creates a critical information disclosure vulnerability where sensitive configuration data is written to log files accessible to unauthorized parties.
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
- Adjacent
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/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.
-
Confirm Fleet Server installationRun 'fleetctl version' or check for fleet-server process: 'ps aux | grep fleet-server'Affected if Fleet Server is not installed, the vulnerability does not apply
-
Identify log file locationsCheck default log paths such as /var/log/fleet-server.log, /var/log/elastic/fleet-server.log, or container stdout/stderr logsAffected if No Fleet Server logs exist, the vulnerability does not apply
-
Search logs for exposed credentialsUse grep to search log files for strings matching your policy credential patterns: grep -i -E '(token|api[_-]?key|password|secret|credential)' /path/to/fleet-server.logAffected if Log entries contain raw credentials, tokens, or API keys from policy configurations, the environment is affected
-
Review policy configurations for embedded secretsRun 'fleetctl get policies' or check policy YAML files for fields containing sensitive values under credentials, tokens, or api_keys sectionsAffected if Policies contain embedded secrets and logging is set to INFO or ERROR level, exposure is likely
-
Check logging configurationInspect fleet-server configuration for logging.level setting (commonly in config.yaml, fleet.yml, or environment variables); verify if level is set to INFO, ERROR, or DEBUGAffected if Logging level is INFO, ERROR, or DEBUG, sensitive policy data may be written to logs
A user is affected if Fleet Server is running with INFO or ERROR logging enabled and policy configurations contain embedded credentials, tokens, or API keys that appear in log output.
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 dataConfigure Fleet Server to redact or exclude sensitive policy fields from logging, audit existing logs for exposure, and rotate any credentials that may have been logged.
- 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-2024-52975 — 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-2024-52975 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