CVE-2024-54449
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 · uneditedThe API used to interact with documents in the application contains two endpoints with a flaw that allows an authenticated attacker to write a file with controlled contents to an arbitrary location on the underlying file system. This can be used to facilitate RCE. An account with ‘read’ and ‘write’ privileges on at least one existing document in the application is required to exploit the vulnerability. Exploitation of this vulnerability would allow an attacker to run commands of their choosing on the underlying operating system of the web server running LogicalDOC.
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 confidenceLogicalDOC contains a path traversal/file write vulnerability in two API endpoints. An authenticated attacker with read/write privileges on any existing document can write arbitrary files with controlled contents to any location on the filesystem, leading to remote code execution.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data< 9.1CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/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.
-
Determine LogicalDOC versionLocate the LogicalDOC installation and identify the installed version number (check installation directory, version file, or application startup logs)Affected if Version is below 9.1 (versions 9.0 and earlier are affected; version 9.1 and later are NOT affected)
-
Confirm API endpoints are exposedIdentify which API endpoints are accessible on the LogicalDOC server (typically at /api/ paths in the web application)Affected if The document write API endpoints are exposed and reachable over the network
-
Verify API authentication is enabledCheck the API security configuration to confirm that authentication is required for document operationsAffected if Authentication is not enforced or can be bypassed on the affected endpoints
-
Check for users with document write privilegesReview user accounts and roles in the system to identify any authenticated users who have read/write access to documentsAffected if Any authenticated user has read/write privileges on existing documents
-
Inspect file write path validationExamine the API endpoint configuration or application logs to determine if path traversal validation is implemented for file write operationsAffected if No path traversal protection or directory restriction is configured on the document write endpoints
You are affected if running LogicalDOC version below 9.1 AND the vulnerable API endpoints are accessible to authenticated users with document write permissions
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.
dbcve · scoped9.1
Restrict file write operations to authorized directories only by implementing strict path validation and path traversal prevention in the affected API endpoints. Consider adding allowlist-based directory restrictions for document operations.
LogicalDOC 9.1 (or latest stable release)
- 1. Backup the existing LogicalDOC installation and database before proceeding with any upgrade.
- 2. Download LogicalDOC version 9.1 or the latest stable release from the official vendor repository.
- 3. Review the official LogicalDOC upgrade documentation for version 9.1 to understand the migration process.
- 4. Stop the LogicalDOC application service.
- 5. Execute the database migration scripts provided with the 9.1 release if any are required.
- 6. Deploy the new version 9.1 application files.
- 7. Start the LogicalDOC service and verify the application functions correctly.
- 8. Validate that the previously vulnerable API endpoints no longer permit arbitrary file writes.
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- 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-2024-54449 — 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-2024-54449 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