ConduitApplication

CVE-2024-6302

MEDIUM · 5.5 CVSS v3.1 Published 2024-06-25
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to 0.7.0 or later.
See remediation →
57/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
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
Lack of privilege checking when processing a redaction in Conduit versions v0.6.0 and lower, allowing a local user to redact any message from users on the same server, given that they are able to send redaction events.

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

Conduit Matrix homeserver versions v0.6.0 and lower lack proper authorization checks when processing message redaction events. A local authenticated user who can send redaction events can redact any message on the server, not just their own, due to missing privilege validation in the redaction processing logic.

MitigationUpgrade Conduit to a version higher than v0.6.0, which should include proper privilege checking for redaction events.

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
ConduitApplication
Affected:< 0.7.0

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
Local
Complexity
Low
Privileges
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
High
Availability
None

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/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. Identify Conduit version
    Run `conduit --version` or check the package manager (e.g., `dpkg -l matrix-conduit`, `rpm -qi conduit`, or check the running container image tag). Compare the version number against the affected range (versions below 0.7.0).
    Affected if The installed version is lower than 0.7.0 (e.g., v0.6.0, v0.5.0, etc.)
  2. Confirm Matrix server is Conduit
    Query the server's /_matrix/client/versions endpoint or check the ServerVersion in the /_matrix/server/unsupported endpoints response. Look for 'Conduit' in the server name string.
    Affected if The server identifies itself as Conduit and the version is below 0.7.0
  3. Verify authenticated users can send redaction events
    As a test authenticated user, attempt to send a redaction event (using PUT /_matrix/client/r0/room/{roomId}/redact/{eventId}/{txnId}) targeting a message sent by a different user in a room you share. Check if the redaction is accepted and processed by the server.
    Affected if The server accepts and processes redaction events from authenticated users for messages they do not own, indicating the authorization check is missing.

If the Conduit version is below 0.7.0 and the server allows authenticated users to redact messages belonging to other users, the environment is affected by CVE-2024-6302.

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
Upgrade available Upgrade to 0.7.0 or later
Fixed in 0.7.0
Interim mitigation

Upgrade Conduit to a version higher than v0.6.0, which should include proper privilege checking for redaction events.

Recommended fix Moderate confidence

Conduit 0.7.0 or later

  1. Back up your Conduit configuration and database before upgrading
  2. Stop the running Conduit service
  3. Upgrade Conduit to version 0.7.0 or later using your package manager or build from source (e.g., cargo install conduit --version 0.7.0 or later)
  4. Verify the upgrade completed successfully
  5. Restart the Conduit service
  6. Confirm that users can no longer redact messages from other users without proper permissions
Caveat Review Conduit 0.7.0 release notes for any configuration or behavioral changes before upgrading

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

Fix this in Conduit Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation4.0 h
  • Testing4.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
12.0 hours of engineering $2,080
Get the upgrade done

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,328.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-6302 — 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-2024-6302 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