Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- EPSS is 0.46% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2024
CVE-2024-37904High confidence
Denial of service from maliciously configured Git repository in Minder
stacklok · minder
Official source article: GitHub GHSA-HPCG-XJQ5-G666 ↗. Check the applicable product and release in the original source.
5.7MediumCVSS 3.1
Scheduled
Fix not verifiedMedium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityMedium→Operational priority:Medium, unchanged from published severity.unchanged
Compensating controls
- 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 stacklok minder 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.
Open-source package ranges1 source-attributed range
These OSV and GitHub advisory ranges apply only to the named package and ecosystem. A listed fixed version is not a universal product patch or proof that an update is installed.
| Ecosystem and package | Affected range | First fixed version | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gogithub.com/stacklok/minder | SEMVER: introduced 0; fixed 0.0.52 | 0.0.52 | OSV record ↗aggregator derived · 10 Sep 2026 |
Medium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.
Fix not verified01
What, why and how
Minder is an open source Software Supply Chain Security Platform. Minder's Git provider is vulnerable to a denial of service from a maliciously configured GitHub repository. The Git provider clones users repositories using the `github.com/go-git/go-git/v5` library on lines `L55-L89`. The Git provider does the following on the lines `L56-L62`. First, it sets the `CloneOptions`, specifying the url, the depth etc. It then validates the options. It then sets up an in-memory filesystem, to which it clones and Finally, it clones the repository. The `(g *Git) Clone()` method is vulnerable to a DoS attack: A Minder user can instruct Minder to clone a large repository which will exhaust memory and crash the Minder server. The root cause of this vulnerability is a combination of the following conditions: 1. Users can control the Git URL which Minder clones, 2. Minder does not enforce a size limit to the repository, 3. Minder clones the entire repository into memory. This issue has been addressed in commit `7979b43` which has been included in release version v0.0.52. Users are advised to upgrade. There are no known workarounds for this vulnerability.
What
Minder is an open source Software Supply Chain Security Platform. Minder's Git provider is vulnerable to a denial of service from a maliciously configured GitHub repository. The Git provider clones users repositories using the `github.com/go-git/go-git/v5` library on lines `L55-L89`. The Git provider does the following on the lines `L56-L62`. First, it sets the `CloneOptions`, specifying the url, the depth etc. It then validates the options. It then sets up an in-memory filesystem, to which it clones and Finally, it clones the repository. The `(g *Git) Clone()` method is vulnerable to a DoS attack: A Minder user can instruct Minder to clone a large repository which will exhaust memory and crash the Minder server. The root cause of this vulnerability is a combination of the following conditions: 1. Users can control the Git URL which Minder clones, 2. Minder does not enforce a size limit to the repository, 3. Minder clones the entire repository into memory. This issue has been addressed in commit `7979b43` which has been included in release version v0.0.52. Users are advised to upgrade. There are no known workarounds for this vulnerability.
Why
The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may disrupt the affected service.
What
Minder is an open source Software Supply Chain Security Platform. Minder's Git provider is vulnerable to a denial of service from a maliciously configured GitHub repository. The Git provider clones users repositories using the `github.com/go-git/go-git/v5` library on lines `L55-L89`. The Git provider does the following on the lines `L56-L62`. First, it sets the `CloneOptions`, specifying the url, the depth etc. It then validates the options. It then sets up an in-memory filesystem, to which it clones and Finally, it clones the repository. The `(g *Git) Clone()` method is vulnerable to a DoS attack: A Minder user can instruct Minder to clone a large repository which will exhaust memory and crash the Minder server. The root cause of this vulnerability is a combination of the following conditions: 1. Users can control the Git URL which Minder clones, 2. Minder does not enforce a size limit to the repository, 3. Minder clones the entire repository into memory. This issue has been addressed in commit `7979b43` which has been included in release version v0.0.52. Users are advised to upgrade. There are no known workarounds for this vulnerability.
Why
The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may disrupt the affected service.
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 → Uncontrolled Resource Consumption → disrupt the affected service
- Attack surface
- Network
- Privileges required
- Low: a basic authenticated account is required
- User interaction
- Required interaction required
- 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-400 ↗
CWE-400: Uncontrolled Resource Consumption. The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource.
- 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:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HCommon 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.UIRequiredUser interaction: Another user must perform an action for exploitation to succeed.SUnchangedScope: The security impact remains within the vulnerable component's authority.CNoneConfidentiality impact: No direct loss is represented by this metric.INoneIntegrity impact: No direct loss is represented by this metric.AHighAvailability impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.- 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.
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
- minder: < 0.0.52
- 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 18 Jun 2024 · Last source change 2 Aug 2024, 04:04 UTC · CWE-400 · Uncontrolled Resource Consumption
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.1
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-2024-2072
Product sourceCNA
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceCNA
NVD statusNVD not scheduled
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.
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.