Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- EPSS is 0.60% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2024
CVE-2024-24771High confidence
Open Forms potential multi-factor authentication bypass
open-formulieren · open-forms
Official source article: GitHub GHSA-64R3-X3GF-VP63 ↗. Check the applicable product and release in the original source.
7.7HighCVSS 3.1
Within 7 days
Mitigation availableHigh technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityHigh→Operational priority:High, unchanged from published severity.unchanged
Compensating controls
- Apply the linked authoritative mitigation while planning the permanent fix.
- Restrict the affected network interface to trusted sources where business-safe.
- Monitor vendor guidance and exploitation sources for a material change.
Verification
- Confirm that the asset runs open-formulieren open-forms and falls inside the recorded affected range.
- Recheck the vendor advisory before scheduling a change because no verified fixed version is currently retained.
- Validate exposure, authentication requirements and compensating controls in the actual environment.
- Reopen this reassessment when CVSS, KEV, EPSS, exploit evidence or remediation changes.
High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
Mitigation available01
What, why and how
Open Forms allows users create and publish smart forms. Versions prior to 2.2.9, 2.3.7, 2.4.5, and 2.5.2 contain a non-exploitable multi-factor authentication weakness. Superusers who have their credentials (username + password) compromised could potentially have the second-factor authentication bypassed if an attacker somehow managed to authenticate to Open Forms. The maintainers of Open Forms do not believe it is or has been possible to perform this login. However, if this were possible, the victim's account may be abused to view (potentially sensitive) submission data or have been used to impersonate other staff accounts to view and/or modify data. Three mitigating factors to help prevent exploitation include: the usual login page (at `/admin/login/`) does not fully log in the user until the second factor was succesfully provided; the additional non-MFA protected login page at `/api/v2/api-authlogin/` was misconfigured and could not be used to log in; and there are no additional ways to log in. This also requires credentials of a superuser to be compromised to be exploitable. Versions 2.2.9, 2.3.7, 2.4.5, and 2.5.2 contain the following patches to address these weaknesses: Move and only enable the API auth endpoints (`/api/v2/api-auth/login/`) with `settings.DEBUG = True`. `settings.DEBUG = True` is insecure and should never be applied in production settings. Additionally, apply a custom permission check to the hijack flow to only allow second-factor-verified superusers to perform user hijacking.
What
Open Forms allows users create and publish smart forms. Versions prior to 2.2.9, 2.3.7, 2.4.5, and 2.5.2 contain a non-exploitable multi-factor authentication weakness. Superusers who have their credentials (username + password) compromised could potentially have the second-factor authentication bypassed if an attacker somehow managed to authenticate to Open Forms. The maintainers of Open Forms do not believe it is or has been possible to perform this login. However, if this were possible, the victim's account may be abused to view (potentially sensitive) submission data or have been used to impersonate other staff accounts to view and/or modify data. Three mitigating factors to help prevent exploitation include: the usual login page (at `/admin/login/`) does not fully log in the user until the second factor was succesfully provided; the additional non-MFA protected login page at `/api/v2/api-authlogin/` was misconfigured and could not be used to log in; and there are no additional ways to log in. This also requires credentials of a superuser to be compromised to be exploitable. Versions 2.2.9, 2.3.7, 2.4.5, and 2.5.2 contain the following patches to address these weaknesses: Move and only enable the API auth endpoints (`/api/v2/api-auth/login/`) with `settings.DEBUG = True`. `settings.DEBUG = True` is insecure and should never be applied in production settings. Additionally, apply a custom permission check to the hijack flow to only allow second-factor-verified superusers to perform user hijacking.
Why
The product does not restrict or incorrectly restricts access to a resource from an unauthorized actor.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation with elevated privileges. If successful, the issue may bypass an access boundary or take over an account.
What
Open Forms allows users create and publish smart forms. Versions prior to 2.2.9, 2.3.7, 2.4.5, and 2.5.2 contain a non-exploitable multi-factor authentication weakness. Superusers who have their credentials (username + password) compromised could potentially have the second-factor authentication bypassed if an attacker somehow managed to authenticate to Open Forms. The maintainers of Open Forms do not believe it is or has been possible to perform this login. However, if this were possible, the victim's account may be abused to view (potentially sensitive) submission data or have been used to impersonate other staff accounts to view and/or modify data. Three mitigating factors to help prevent exploitation include: the usual login page (at `/admin/login/`) does not fully log in the user until the second factor was succesfully provided; the additional non-MFA protected login page at `/api/v2/api-authlogin/` was misconfigured and could not be used to log in; and there are no additional ways to log in. This also requires credentials of a superuser to be compromised to be exploitable. Versions 2.2.9, 2.3.7, 2.4.5, and 2.5.2 contain the following patches to address these weaknesses: Move and only enable the API auth endpoints (`/api/v2/api-auth/login/`) with `settings.DEBUG = True`. `settings.DEBUG = True` is insecure and should never be applied in production settings. Additionally, apply a custom permission check to the hijack flow to only allow second-factor-verified superusers to perform user hijacking.
Why
The product does not restrict or incorrectly restricts access to a resource from an unauthorized actor.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation with elevated privileges. If successful, the issue may bypass an access boundary or take over an account.
02
Exploit reality and attack path
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
Observed exploitation No confirmed evidence
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
Public PoC / exploit material None recorded
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.
- Likely attack path
- a network path → Improper Access Control → bypass an access boundary or take over an account
- Attack surface
- Network
- Privileges required
- High: elevated access is required
- User interaction
- None
- Attack complexity
- High: exploitation depends on specific conditions
- Security boundary
- Changed: exploitation can affect a different security authority
- Weakness
?
CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness. - CWE-284 ↗
CWE-284: Improper Access Control. The product does not restrict or incorrectly restricts access to a resource from an unauthorized actor.
- CVSS vector
?
CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity. CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:NCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
AVNetworkAttack vector: The vulnerable component can be reached over a network.ACHighAttack complexity: Successful exploitation depends on specific conditions outside the attacker's direct control.PRHighPrivileges required: The attacker needs elevated or administrative privileges.UINoneUser interaction: No action by another user is required.SChangedScope: The attack can affect a component governed by a different security authority.CHighConfidentiality impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.IHighIntegrity impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.ANoneAvailability impact: No direct loss is represented by this metric.- Post-exploitation / living off the land
- Stolen credentials, tokens and legitimate administration functions may provide continued access without deploying a large custom toolset.
03
Patch and workaround
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
- Status
?
Patch availability is based on structured fixed-version fields and authoritative update references. If no fix is verified, check the vendor advisory before making a change. - Mitigation available
- Affected
- open-forms: < 2.2.9, >= 2.3.0-alpha.0, < 2.3.7, >= 2.4.0-alpha.0, < 2.4.4, >= 2.5.0-alpha.0, < 2.5.2
- Action
- Apply the mitigation in the linked authoritative guidance while planning the vendor's permanent fix.
- Workaround
- A mitigation or workaround reference is available from the source linked below; validate it against the affected product and version.
04
Evidence and provenance
Published 7 Feb 2024 · Last source change 30 Jan 2026, 19:53 UTC · CWE-284 · Improper Access Control
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.2
CVSS sourceCNA
EPSS source FIRST · tracked since 2026-08-14
?
The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2024-22154
Product sourceCNA
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceCNA
NVD statusNVD modified after enrichment
Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.
Material change intelligence
View recent updates ↗What changed after publication
No material field changes have been recorded since change tracking began. Routine source refreshes and cosmetic edits are intentionally excluded.
CVE published
Mitigation reference recorded
Technical terms and abbreviations used in this report
- CVE
- Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures: the public identifier for one disclosed vulnerability.
- CVSS
- Common Vulnerability Scoring System: a technical severity framework; it is not patching priority by itself.
- EPSS
- Exploit Prediction Scoring System: FIRST's estimate of the probability that exploitation activity will be observed in the next 30 days; it is a forecast, not confirmation.
- CWE
- Common Weakness Enumeration: the standard category describing the underlying software or hardware weakness.
- CNA
- CVE Numbering Authority: an organisation authorised to assign and publish CVE records.
- CISA ADP
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Authorized Data Publisher: structured enrichment added to a CVE record.
- NVD
- National Vulnerability Database: NIST's enrichment service for CVE records.
- CERT / CSIRT
- A computer security incident response team that publishes warnings or coordinates incident response.
- PoC
- Proof of concept: public material that demonstrates or helps reproduce exploitation.
- CSAF
- Common Security Advisory Framework: a machine-readable format for security advisories.
- LoTL
- Living off the land: abuse of legitimate tools or system functions during an attack.