BlackTreeCVE Intelligence
← Back to the CVE catalogue
Full vulnerability report · 2024
CVE-2024-35189High confidence

Sensitive Data Disclosure Vulnerability in Connection Configuration Endpoints in Fides

ethyca · fides

6.5MediumCVSS 3.1
Recommended action
Within 7 days

Medium technical severity with public exploit material referenced by a structured source; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.

Fix not verified
Optional official sources

National CERT insights
?CERT means Computer Emergency Response Team; CSIRT is the closely related term Computer Security Incident Response Team.

Select the national-authority views to include. The exact source language is shown on each matched advisory. Your choice is remembered on this device and encoded in the shareable URL.

Official European source

ENISA European Vulnerability Database

Official EUVD identifiers, advisory evidence and known-exploited context. Missing fields are not treated as evidence of low risk.

1 current
ENISA EUVD identifier

EUVD-2024-2158

No EUVD known-exploited evidence

ENISA has published the identifier mapping but no EUVD description has been stored yet.

EUVD state
Present in the current official mapping
Known exploitation
Not present in the current ENISA EUVD known-exploited dataset. This is not proof of no exploitation.
ENISA score
Not supplied in the stored EUVD record
Advisory evidence
No linked advisory details stored yet
Recommended actionWithin 7 days

Medium technical severity with public exploit material referenced by a structured source; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.

Fix not verified
01

What, why and how

Fides is an open-source privacy engineering platform. The Fides webserver has a number of endpoints that retrieve `ConnectionConfiguration` records and their associated `secrets` which _can_ contain sensitive data (e.g. passwords, private keys, etc.). These `secrets` are stored encrypted at rest (in the application database), and the associated endpoints are not meant to expose that sensitive data in plaintext to API clients, as it could be compromising. Fides's developers have available to them a Pydantic field-attribute (`sensitive`) that they can annotate as `True` to indicate that a given secret field should not be exposed via the API. The application has an internal function that uses `sensitive` annotations to mask the sensitive fields with a `"**********"` placeholder value. This vulnerability is due to a bug in that function, which prevented `sensitive` API model fields that were _nested_ below the root-level of a `secrets` object from being masked appropriately. Only the `BigQuery` connection configuration secrets meets these criteria: the secrets schema has a nested sensitive `keyfile_creds.private_key` property that is exposed in plaintext via the APIs. Connection types other than `BigQuery` with sensitive fields at the root-level that are not nested are properly masked with the placeholder and are not affected by this vulnerability. This vulnerability has been patched in Fides version 2.37.0. Users are advised to upgrade to this version or later to secure their systems against this threat. Users are also advised to rotate any Google Cloud secrets used for BigQuery integrations in their Fides deployments. There are no known workarounds for this vulnerability.

What

Fides is an open-source privacy engineering platform. The Fides webserver has a number of endpoints that retrieve `ConnectionConfiguration` records and their associated `secrets` which _can_ contain sensitive data (e.g. passwords, private keys, etc.). These `secrets` are stored encrypted at rest (in the application database), and the associated endpoints are not meant to expose that sensitive data in plaintext to API clients, as it could be compromising. Fides's developers have available to them a Pydantic field-attribute (`sensitive`) that they can annotate as `True` to indicate that a given secret field should not be exposed via the API. The application has an internal function that uses `sensitive` annotations to mask the sensitive fields with a `"**********"` placeholder value. This vulnerability is due to a bug in that function, which prevented `sensitive` API model fields that were _nested_ below the root-level of a `secrets` object from being masked appropriately. Only the `BigQuery` connection configuration secrets meets these criteria: the secrets schema has a nested sensitive `keyfile_creds.private_key` property that is exposed in plaintext via the APIs. Connection types other than `BigQuery` with sensitive fields at the root-level that are not nested are properly masked with the placeholder and are not affected by this vulnerability. This vulnerability has been patched in Fides version 2.37.0. Users are advised to upgrade to this version or later to secure their systems against this threat. Users are also advised to rotate any Google Cloud secrets used for BigQuery integrations in their Fides deployments. There are no known workarounds for this vulnerability.

Why

The code transmits data to another actor, but a portion of the data includes sensitive information that should not be accessible to that actor.

How

An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.

What

Fides is an open-source privacy engineering platform. The Fides webserver has a number of endpoints that retrieve `ConnectionConfiguration` records and their associated `secrets` which _can_ contain sensitive data (e.g. passwords, private keys, etc.). These `secrets` are stored encrypted at rest (in the application database), and the associated endpoints are not meant to expose that sensitive data in plaintext to API clients, as it could be compromising. Fides's developers have available to them a Pydantic field-attribute (`sensitive`) that they can annotate as `True` to indicate that a given secret field should not be exposed via the API. The application has an internal function that uses `sensitive` annotations to mask the sensitive fields with a `"**********"` placeholder value. This vulnerability is due to a bug in that function, which prevented `sensitive` API model fields that were _nested_ below the root-level of a `secrets` object from being masked appropriately. Only the `BigQuery` connection configuration secrets meets these criteria: the secrets schema has a nested sensitive `keyfile_creds.private_key` property that is exposed in plaintext via the APIs. Connection types other than `BigQuery` with sensitive fields at the root-level that are not nested are properly masked with the placeholder and are not affected by this vulnerability. This vulnerability has been patched in Fides version 2.37.0. Users are advised to upgrade to this version or later to secure their systems against this threat. Users are also advised to rotate any Google Cloud secrets used for BigQuery integrations in their Fides deployments. There are no known workarounds for this vulnerability.

Why

The code transmits data to another actor, but a portion of the data includes sensitive information that should not be accessible to that actor.

How

An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.

02

Exploit reality and attack path

CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.

Observed exploitation
?Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.
No confirmed evidence

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
?Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.
Reference recorded

A structured CVE source labels at least one public reference as exploit material. BlackTree has not independently validated that it is safe, reliable or weaponised.

Likely attack path
a network path → Insertion of Sensitive Information Into Sent Data → cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor
Attack surface
Network
Privileges required
Low: a basic authenticated account is required
User interaction
None
Attack complexity
Low: no specialised conditions are recorded
Security boundary
Unchanged: impact remains within the vulnerable component's security authority
Weakness
?CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness.
CWE-201

CWE-201: Insertion of Sensitive Information Into Sent Data. The code transmits data to another actor, but a portion of the data includes sensitive information that should not be accessible to that 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:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N

Common 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.ACLowAttack complexity: No specialised conditions are required beyond attacker-controlled input.PRLowPrivileges required: The attacker needs basic user-level privileges.UINoneUser interaction: No action by another user is required.SUnchangedScope: The security impact remains within the vulnerable component's authority.CHighConfidentiality impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.INoneIntegrity impact: No direct loss is represented by this metric.ANoneAvailability impact: No direct loss is represented by this metric.
Post-exploitation / living off the land
No specific living-off-the-land technique is confirmed in the structured sources. Monitor normal administration tools for activity inconsistent with the affected service's baseline.
NetworkCWE-201Public exploit reference
A

Official authority intelligence

Only matched European and national findings are included. Language selectors and unavailable sources are omitted.

Cyber Security Agency of Singapore · English · CSA-SB-20240605Security Bulletin 05 Jun 2024

The Cyber Security Agency of Singapore included this CVE in its official Security Bulletin 05 Jun 2024, published on 5 June 2024. Open the linked bulletin for the product, severity and reference information published in that issue.

Official advisory ↗
JVN iPedia · Japanese · JVNDB-2024-029072ethyca の fides における情報漏えいに関する脆弱性

ethyca の fides には、情報漏えいに関する脆弱性、送信データへの重要な情報の挿入に関する脆弱性が存在します。

Official advisory ↗
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.
Fix not verified
Affected
fides: < 2.37.0
Fixed
No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
Action
No verified patch reference is present in the current structured sources. Check the vendor advisory before making a change.
Workaround
No verified workaround is recorded. If business-safe, reduce exposure to the affected interface and allow only trusted sources until authoritative guidance is available.
04

Evidence and provenance

Published 30 May 2024 · Last source change 2 Aug 2024, 03:07 UTC · CWE-201 · Insertion of Sensitive Information Into Sent Data

CVE recordCVE.org · 5.1
CVSS sourceCNA
EPSS source
?The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.
FIRST · tracked since 2026-08-14
European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2024-2158
Product sourceCNA
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceCNA
NVD statusNVD enriched

Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.

Material change intelligence

What changed after publication

View recent updates ↗

No material field changes have been recorded since change tracking began. Routine source refreshes and cosmetic edits are intentionally excluded.

Material fields only · duplicate refreshes suppressed · history retained for the configured operational retention period
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.
Free version - for non-commercial use only.CVE-2024-35189 · cve.blacktree.nl