CVE-2024-6472
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 · uneditedCertificate Validation user interface in LibreOffice allows potential vulnerability. Signed macros are scripts that have been digitally signed by the developer using a cryptographic signature. When a document with a signed macro is opened a warning is displayed by LibreOffice before the macro is executed. Previously if verification failed the user could fail to understand the failure and choose to enable the macros anyway. This issue affects LibreOffice: from 24.2 before 24.2.5.
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 confidenceThe certificate validation UI in LibreOffice did not clearly communicate when macro signature verification failed, allowing users to unknowingly enable potentially malicious signed macros by failing to understand or ignoring the warning about verification failure.
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>= 24.2.0.0, < 24.2.5.1CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/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.
-
Check installed LibreOffice versionOpen LibreOffice, go to Help > About LibreOffice. Note the version number displayed.Affected if The version shown is 24.2.0.0 through 24.2.4.x (any version >= 24.2.0.0 but < 24.2.5.1)
-
Identify macro usageDetermine whether documents containing macros are opened or used in the LibreOffice installation. Check for .odm, .ods, .odt, .odg, .odp files with embedded macro scripts.Affected if Signed macros are regularly opened or executed in the affected LibreOffice version
-
Verify macro security settingsGo to Tools > Options > Security > Macro Security. Note the security level setting.Affected if Macro security is set to Medium or Low, allowing signed macros to run with reduced warning prompts
You are affected if LibreOffice version is 24.2.0.0 through 24.2.4.x AND you open documents containing signed macros, as the UI did not clearly warn about signature verification failures in those versions.
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 · scoped24.2.5.1
Upgrade to LibreOffice 24.2.5 or later where the UI properly communicates signature verification failures to users.
24.2.5.1
- Check current LibreOffice version via Help > About LibreOffice
- Download LibreOffice version 24.2.5.1 or later from the official website (www.libreoffice.org)
- Install the newer version, ensuring to back up any personal settings if desired
- Restart LibreOffice after installation
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation1.0 h
- Testing1.0 h
- Review / QA0.5 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,200.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-6472 — 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-2024-6472 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