Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- The selected CVSS metric records a network-reachable, unauthenticated path with no user interaction.
- EPSS is 0.82% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2024
CVE-2024-56128High confidence
Apache Kafka: SCRAM authentication vulnerable to replay attacks when used without encryption
Apache Software Foundation · Apache Kafka
5.3MediumCVSS 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 Apache Software Foundation Apache Kafka 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 ranges12 source-attributed ranges
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mavenorg.apache.kafka:kafka_2.10 | ECOSYSTEM: introduced 0.10.2.0; last affected 0.10.2.2 | Not stated | OSV record ↗aggregator derived · 10 Sep 2026 |
| Mavenorg.apache.kafka:kafka_2.11 | ECOSYSTEM: introduced 0.10.2.0; last affected 2.4.1 | Not stated | OSV record ↗aggregator derived · 10 Sep 2026 |
| Mavenorg.apache.kafka:kafka_2.12 | ECOSYSTEM: introduced 0.10.2.0; fixed 3.7.2 | 3.7.2 | OSV record ↗aggregator derived · 10 Sep 2026 |
| Mavenorg.apache.kafka:kafka_2.12 | ECOSYSTEM: introduced 3.8.0; fixed 3.8.1 | 3.8.1 | OSV record ↗aggregator derived · 10 Sep 2026 |
| Mavenorg.apache.kafka:kafka_2.13 | ECOSYSTEM: introduced 0.10.2.0; fixed 3.7.2 | 3.7.2 | OSV record ↗aggregator derived · 10 Sep 2026 |
| Mavenorg.apache.kafka:kafka_2.13 | ECOSYSTEM: introduced 3.8.0; fixed 3.8.1 | 3.8.1 | OSV record ↗aggregator derived · 10 Sep 2026 |
| mavenorg.apache.kafka:kafka_2.10 | >= 0.10.2.0, <= 0.10.2.2 | Not stated | GitHub advisory ↗github reviewed aggregator · 2 Jul 2025 |
| mavenorg.apache.kafka:kafka_2.11 | >= 0.10.2.0, <= 2.4.1 | Not stated | GitHub advisory ↗github reviewed aggregator · 2 Jul 2025 |
| mavenorg.apache.kafka:kafka_2.12 | >= 0.10.2.0, < 3.7.2 | 3.7.2 | GitHub advisory ↗github reviewed aggregator · 2 Jul 2025 |
| mavenorg.apache.kafka:kafka_2.12 | = 3.8.0 | 3.8.1 | GitHub advisory ↗github reviewed aggregator · 2 Jul 2025 |
| mavenorg.apache.kafka:kafka_2.13 | >= 0.10.2.0, < 3.7.2 | 3.7.2 | GitHub advisory ↗github reviewed aggregator · 2 Jul 2025 |
| mavenorg.apache.kafka:kafka_2.13 | = 3.8.0 | 3.8.1 | GitHub advisory ↗github reviewed aggregator · 2 Jul 2025 |
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
Incorrect Implementation of Authentication Algorithm in Apache Kafka's SCRAM implementation. Issue Summary: Apache Kafka's implementation of the Salted Challenge Response Authentication Mechanism (SCRAM) did not fully adhere to the requirements of RFC 5802 [1]. Specifically, as per RFC 5802, the server must verify that the nonce sent by the client in the second message matches the nonce sent by the server in its first message. However, Kafka's SCRAM implementation did not perform this validation. Impact: This vulnerability is exploitable only when an attacker has plaintext access to the SCRAM authentication exchange. However, the usage of SCRAM over plaintext is strongly discouraged as it is considered an insecure practice [2]. Apache Kafka recommends deploying SCRAM exclusively with TLS encryption to protect SCRAM exchanges from interception [3]. Deployments using SCRAM with TLS are not affected by this issue. How to Detect If You Are Impacted: If your deployment uses SCRAM authentication over plaintext communication channels (without TLS encryption), you are likely impacted. To check if TLS is enabled, review your server.properties configuration file for listeners property. If you have SASL_PLAINTEXT in the listeners, then you are likely impacted. Fix Details: The issue has been addressed by introducing nonce verification in the final message of the SCRAM authentication exchange to ensure compliance with RFC 5802. Affected Versions: Apache Kafka versions 0.10.2.0 through 3.9.0, excluding the fixed versions below. Fixed Versions: 3.9.0 3.8.1 3.7.2 Users are advised to upgrade to 3.7.2 or later to mitigate this issue. Recommendations for Mitigation: Users unable to upgrade to the fixed versions can mitigate the issue by: - Using TLS with SCRAM Authentication: Always deploy SCRAM over TLS to encrypt authentication exchanges and protect against interception. - Considering Alternative Authentication Mechanisms: Evaluate alternative authentication mechanisms, such as PLAIN, Kerberos or OAuth with TLS, which provide additional layers of security.
What
Incorrect Implementation of Authentication Algorithm in Apache Kafka's SCRAM implementation. Issue Summary: Apache Kafka's implementation of the Salted Challenge Response Authentication Mechanism (SCRAM) did not fully adhere to the requirements of RFC 5802 [1]. Specifically, as per RFC 5802, the server must verify that the nonce sent by the client in the second message matches the nonce sent by the server in its first message. However, Kafka's SCRAM implementation did not perform this validation. Impact: This vulnerability is exploitable only when an attacker has plaintext access to the SCRAM authentication exchange. However, the usage of SCRAM over plaintext is strongly discouraged as it is considered an insecure practice [2]. Apache Kafka recommends deploying SCRAM exclusively with TLS encryption to protect SCRAM exchanges from interception [3]. Deployments using SCRAM with TLS are not affected by this issue. How to Detect If You Are Impacted: If your deployment uses SCRAM authentication over plaintext communication channels (without TLS encryption), you are likely impacted. To check if TLS is enabled, review your server.properties configuration file for listeners property. If you have SASL_PLAINTEXT in the listeners, then you are likely impacted. Fix Details: The issue has been addressed by introducing nonce verification in the final message of the SCRAM authentication exchange to ensure compliance with RFC 5802. Affected Versions: Apache Kafka versions 0.10.2.0 through 3.9.0, excluding the fixed versions below. Fixed Versions: 3.9.0 3.8.1 3.7.2 Users are advised to upgrade to 3.7.2 or later to mitigate this issue. Recommendations for Mitigation: Users unable to upgrade to the fixed versions can mitigate the issue by: - Using TLS with SCRAM Authentication: Always deploy SCRAM over TLS to encrypt authentication exchanges and protect against interception. - Considering Alternative Authentication Mechanisms: Evaluate alternative authentication mechanisms, such as PLAIN, Kerberos or OAuth with TLS, which provide additional layers of security.
Why
The requirements for the product dictate the use of an established authentication algorithm, but the implementation of the algorithm is incorrect.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication or user interaction. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
What
Incorrect Implementation of Authentication Algorithm in Apache Kafka's SCRAM implementation. Issue Summary: Apache Kafka's implementation of the Salted Challenge Response Authentication Mechanism (SCRAM) did not fully adhere to the requirements of RFC 5802 [1]. Specifically, as per RFC 5802, the server must verify that the nonce sent by the client in the second message matches the nonce sent by the server in its first message. However, Kafka's SCRAM implementation did not perform this validation. Impact: This vulnerability is exploitable only when an attacker has plaintext access to the SCRAM authentication exchange. However, the usage of SCRAM over plaintext is strongly discouraged as it is considered an insecure practice [2]. Apache Kafka recommends deploying SCRAM exclusively with TLS encryption to protect SCRAM exchanges from interception [3]. Deployments using SCRAM with TLS are not affected by this issue. How to Detect If You Are Impacted: If your deployment uses SCRAM authentication over plaintext communication channels (without TLS encryption), you are likely impacted. To check if TLS is enabled, review your server.properties configuration file for listeners property. If you have SASL_PLAINTEXT in the listeners, then you are likely impacted. Fix Details: The issue has been addressed by introducing nonce verification in the final message of the SCRAM authentication exchange to ensure compliance with RFC 5802. Affected Versions: Apache Kafka versions 0.10.2.0 through 3.9.0, excluding the fixed versions below. Fixed Versions: 3.9.0 3.8.1 3.7.2 Users are advised to upgrade to 3.7.2 or later to mitigate this issue. Recommendations for Mitigation: Users unable to upgrade to the fixed versions can mitigate the issue by: - Using TLS with SCRAM Authentication: Always deploy SCRAM over TLS to encrypt authentication exchanges and protect against interception. - Considering Alternative Authentication Mechanisms: Evaluate alternative authentication mechanisms, such as PLAIN, Kerberos or OAuth with TLS, which provide additional layers of security.
Why
The requirements for the product dictate the use of an established authentication algorithm, but the implementation of the algorithm is incorrect.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication or user interaction. 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 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 → Incorrect Implementation of Authentication Algorithm → cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor
- Attack surface
- Network
- Privileges required
- None: unauthenticated exploitation is possible
- 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-303 ↗
CWE-303: Incorrect Implementation of Authentication Algorithm. The requirements for the product dictate the use of an established authentication algorithm, but the implementation of the algorithm is incorrect.
- 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:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/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.ACLowAttack complexity: No specialised conditions are required beyond attacker-controlled input.PRNonePrivileges required: The attacker does not need an account or existing privileges.UINoneUser interaction: No action by another user is required.SUnchangedScope: The security impact remains within the vulnerable component's authority.CLowConfidentiality impact: A successful attack can cause a limited 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.
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
- Apache Kafka: 0.10.2.0 < 3.7.2, 3.8.0
- 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 18 Dec 2024 · Last source change 18 Dec 2024, 17:02 UTC · CWE-303 · Incorrect Implementation of Authentication Algorithm
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.1
CVSS sourceCISA ADP
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-2024-3603
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
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.