CVE-2024-6435
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 · uneditedA privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the affected products which could allow a malicious user with basic privileges to access functions which should only be available to users with administrative level privileges. If exploited, an attacker could read sensitive data, and create users. For example, a malicious user with basic privileges could perform critical functions such as creating a user with elevated privileges and reading sensitive information in the “views” section.
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 confidenceThis is a privilege escalation vulnerability where basic-level users can access administrative functions due to missing or insufficient authorization checks. An authenticated attacker with basic privileges can bypass access controls to read sensitive data from the views section and create new users with elevated privileges.
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= 5.15.00= 5.15.01= 5.16.00= 5.17.00= 5.17.01= 5.20.00CVSS 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.
-
Verify Pavilion8 versionLocate the installed Pavilion8 version through the application interface, typically found in Help > About, or check the installer/application metadata on the host systemAffected if The installed version matches 5.15.00, 5.15.01, 5.16.00, 5.17.00, 5.17.01, or 5.20.00
-
Confirm basic-level user accounts existCheck the user management section to identify accounts assigned standard or basic privilege rolesAffected if Basic-level user accounts are present in the system
-
Test views section access from basic accountLog in using a basic-level user account and attempt to access the views section or administrative data viewsAffected if A basic-level user can read sensitive data from the views section without restriction
-
Test user creation capability from basic accountLog in using a basic-level user account and attempt to access user creation or user management functionsAffected if A basic-level user can access functions to create new users or assign elevated privileges
A user is affected if running an affected Pavilion8 version and basic-level accounts can access administrative views or create elevated users without proper authorization checks.
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 dataImplement role-based access control (RBAC) and enforce server-side authorization checks on all administrative endpoints to verify user privilege levels before allowing access to sensitive functions.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $7,968.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-6435 — 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-2024-6435 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