CVE-2024-56142
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 · uneditedpghoard is a PostgreSQL backup daemon and restore tooling that stores backup data in cloud object stores. A vulnerability has been discovered that could allow an attacker to acquire disk access with privileges equivalent to those of pghoard, allowing for unintended path traversal. Depending on the permissions/privileges assigned to pghoard, this could allow disclosure of sensitive information. This issue has been addressed in releases after 2.2.2a. Users are advised to upgrade. There are no known workarounds for this vulnerability.
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 confidencepghoard contains a path traversal vulnerability that allows an attacker with the ability to influence backup or restore operations to access files outside the intended directories. By manipulating file paths, an attacker can acquire disk access with the privileges of the pghoard process, potentially leading to disclosure of sensitive files on the system.
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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify pghoard installation and versionRun 'pip show pghoard' or 'pghoard --version' to retrieve the installed version number. On systems with RPM packages, use 'rpm -q pghoard' to check the package version.Affected if The installed version is 2.2.2a or earlier, since the vulnerability was fixed in versions after 2.2.2a.
-
Determine if pghoard backup/restore API is exposedInspect pghoard configuration files (typically in /etc/pghoard/ or the configured config directory) for 'web_server' or 'api' settings. Check if port 16000 (default pghoard API port) is listening on any network interface other than localhost by running 'netstat -tlnp | grep 16000' or 'ss -tlnp | grep 16000'.Affected if The pghoard API is accessible from network interfaces other than localhost, allowing remote attackers to influence backup or restore operations.
-
Check backup storage configuration for path restrictionsReview pghoard configuration under 'backup' or 'storage' sections. Look for 'basebackup' or 'restore' configuration blocks to determine if path validation is enforced. Search configuration files for any path-related settings.Affected if Backup or restore operations can accept user-controlled file paths without validation, enabling path traversal attacks.
-
Verify restore functionality exposureExamine if the restore API endpoint (typically /api/2/restore or similar paths) accepts custom target directories. Check pghoard logs for any restore requests with absolute or '../' path patterns if logging is available.Affected if The restore operation accepts arbitrary target directories without sanitization, allowing attackers to write or read files outside intended directories.
A system is affected if pghoard version 2.2.2a or earlier is installed AND the backup/restore API is network-accessible, allowing external manipulation of file paths during backup or restore operations.
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 · scopedUpgrade pghoard to versions after 2.2.2a. There are no known workarounds; upgrading is the only remediation path.
Any release after 2.2.2a (latest stable version recommended)
- 1. Identify the currently installed pghoard version using package manager or pip show command
- 2. Upgrade pghoard to a version greater than 2.2.2a (e.g., pip install --upgrade pghoard or use system package manager)
- 3. Verify the upgrade was successful by checking the new version number
- 4. Restart the pghoard service to ensure the patched version is running
- 5. Test backup and restore functionality to confirm normal operation
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $2,752.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-56142 — 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-2024-56142 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