Service InterconnectApplication · Redhat
CVE-2024-6535
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 flaw was found in Skupper. When Skupper is initialized with the console-enabled and with console-auth set to Openshift, it configures the openshift oauth-proxy with a static cookie-secret. In certain circumstances, this may allow an attacker to bypass authentication to the Skupper console via a specially-crafted cookie.
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 confidenceSkupper when configured with console-enabled and console-auth set to Openshift uses a static cookie-secret for the openshift oauth-proxy. An attacker can craft malicious cookies to bypass authentication and gain unauthorized access to the Skupper console.
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
Service InterconnectApplication
= 1.0CVSS 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
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/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 Skupper installation and versionCheck if Red Hat Service Interconnect version 1.0 is installed in your environmentAffected if Version 1.0 is confirmed to be installed
-
Verify console-enabled configurationInspect Skupper configuration to determine if console-enabled is set to trueAffected if Console is enabled in the Skupper deployment
-
Confirm console-auth is set to OpenshiftReview the console-auth setting in the Skupper configurationAffected if console-auth is configured to use Openshift as the authentication provider
-
Locate oauth-proxy configurationFind the oauth-proxy configuration used by the Skupper consoleAffected if oauth-proxy is configured for the console with Openshift authentication
-
Inspect cookie-secret settingExamine the cookie-secret parameter in the oauth-proxy configurationAffected if The cookie-secret contains a static hardcoded value rather than a dynamic random secret
-
Compare cookie-secret against known static valuesReview documentation or configuration to determine if the cookie-secret matches a known static defaultAffected if A static cookie-secret is in use for the Openshift oauth-proxy
You are affected if you are running Red Hat Service Interconnect 1.0 with console-enabled and console-auth configured to use Openshift, and the oauth-proxy is using a static cookie-secret.
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 dataRegenerate the cookie-secret using a dynamic random value rather than a static hardcoded secret, and ensure proper secret rotation mechanisms are in place for oauth-proxy configuration.
Fix this in Service Interconnect
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-6535 — 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-2024-6535 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