Race ConditionWeakness · CWE-362

CVE-2024-53476

MEDIUM · 5.9 CVSS v3.1 Published 2024-12-27
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
68/100
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
A race condition vulnerability in SimplCommerce at commit 230310c8d7a0408569b292c5a805c459d47a1d8f allows attackers to bypass inventory restrictions by simultaneously submitting purchase requests from multiple accounts for the same product. This can lead to overselling when stock is limited, as the system fails to accurately track inventory under high concurrency, resulting in potential loss and unfulfilled orders.

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

Race condition in SimplCommerce's inventory management allows attackers to bypass inventory restrictions by simultaneously submitting purchase requests from multiple accounts for the same product. The system fails to accurately track inventory under high concurrency, resulting in overselling when stock is limited.

MitigationImplement proper database-level locking (pessimistic or optimistic locking) and transactional integrity for inventory operations to ensure atomic check-and-decrement sequences.

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
High
Privileges
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
High
Availability
None

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/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. Locate SimplCommerce installation
    Find the SimplCommerce deployment directory or running instance. Check for the presence of SimplCommerce.Core, SimplCommerce.WebHost, or similar SimplCommerce-specific DLLs and configuration files in the application root.
    Affected if SimplCommerce is not present in the environment - if not found, the system is not affected.
  2. Identify SimplCommerce version
    Inspect the project file (SimplCommerce.csproj), assembly metadata, or package.json for the SimplCommerce version number. Look in the wwwroot/admin folder or the main project directory for version information.
    Affected if Unable to determine version or version is unpatched for CVE-2024-53476 - compare against any available patch releases.
  3. Verify inventory management module is active
    Check the SimplCommerce database for tables related to inventory (such as ProductInventory, InventoryTrackers, or similar). Confirm that products have stock tracking enabled in the product catalog configuration.
    Affected if Inventory tracking is disabled or no inventory-related tables exist - if stock management is not in use, the race condition does not apply.
  4. Inspect order checkout code path
    Examine the order placement or checkout code in the SimplCommerce solution. Look for the inventory decrement logic during order creation, typically in services like OrderService, CheckoutService, or InventoryService. Identify whether the check-and-decrement operation lacks atomic transactional protection.
    Affected if The inventory decrement logic exists without pessimistic locking, optimistic concurrency, or explicit transaction scope - this indicates the vulnerable code path is present.

The environment is affected if SimplCommerce is running with inventory tracking enabled and the inventory decrement logic during checkout lacks proper database-level locking or transactional atomicity.

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 database-level locking (pessimistic or optimistic locking) and transactional integrity for inventory operations to ensure atomic check-and-decrement sequences.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation4.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
11.0 hours of engineering $1,930
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,088.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-53476 — 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-2024-53476 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