CVE-2024-10977
Postgresql 12.0 – 12.21
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:NCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2024-10977 is a low-severity Use of Less Trusted Source (CWE-348) vulnerability in Postgresql Postgresql. Its CVSS base score is 3.1 (Low).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Cached Domain Credentials (T1003.005); ranked at the 30th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to AC-4 (Information Flow Enforcement) and IA-3 (Device Identification and Authentication) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-33375
Vulnerability Data
Client use of server error message in PostgreSQL allows a server not trusted under current SSL or GSS settings to furnish arbitrary non-NUL bytes to the libpq application. For example, a man-in-the-middle attacker could send a long error message that…
more
a human or screen-scraper user of psql mistakes for valid query results. This is probably not a concern for clients where the user interface unambiguously indicates the boundary between one error message and other text. Versions before PostgreSQL 17.1, 16.5, 15.9, 14.14, 13.17, and 12.21 are affected.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 7 hardening rules · 4 OS baselines
—
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Explicit requirement to protect session authenticity structurally prevents the weakness for communications.
Provenance tracking supplies the information needed to distinguish and prefer more-trusted sources, reducing the chance that a weaker source is chosen.
Information flow enforcement can require that data or decisions are taken only from explicitly approved, higher-trust sources rather than less-verified ones.
Device identification and authentication forces verification of the source before any data it supplies is used, eliminating reliance on unauthenticated inputs.
Integrity verification tools detect (but do not stop) the acceptance of data lacking authenticity.
Cryptographic mechanisms can be used to verify authenticity, thereby preventing acceptance of invalid data.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Correlating multiple sources can surface discrepancies that discourage reliance on the less-trusted one.
Explicit authenticity/integrity checks before use directly reduce selection of a less-trusted source.
Protecting data-in-transit integrity helps ensure the more-trusted source is the one whose data is accepted.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Network security controls can enforce trusted data paths and source validation, reducing reliance on unverified inputs.
Secure network services include source validation and integrity checks that help prevent acceptance of data from less-trusted origins.
A.8.24's guidance on identifying protection levels, selecting algorithms/strength for authenticity/integrity (items b,f), using cryptography for transmitted/stored data (c), and key management directly stops many CWE-345 exploits by ensuring verifiable authenticity; however, it leaves a bounded remainder where verification logic itself is flawed or absent (e.g. accepting unverified signatures or weak schemes), as the control depends on correct implementation in other mechanisms.
Secure SDLC incorporates authenticity verification requirements throughout development.
A.8.26 requires identifying and specifying security requirements (including input validation, trust levels, and resilience against injections) but does not itself enforce, implement, or configure any mechanism that stops CWE-348 from being exploited; it is a requirements-gathering control whose effect depends on other controls (e.g. 8.24, 8.5) being correctly realized.
Hardening callouts derived
Configuration rules from DISA STIG baselines that bear on weaknesses of the type cited by this CVE. Each rule is shown with the relationship its mapping actually records, against the CWE it was authored against. Derived via CVE→CWE over `controls_xwalks` (higher-evidence rows only; rows rated `none` are excluded).
Oracle Linux 8 (1 rule)
- V-248575 OL 8 must prevent the installation of software, patches, service packs, device drivers, or operating system components of local packages without verification they have been digitally signed using a certificate that is issued by a Certificate Authority (CA) that is recognized and approved by the organization. blocks CWE-348
Oracle Linux 9 (1 rule)
- V-271525 OL 9 must have GPG signature verification enabled for all software repositories. blocks CWE-348
RHEL 7 (1 rule)
- V-204447 The Red Hat Enterprise Linux operating system must prevent the installation of software, patches, service packs, device drivers, or operating system components from a repository without verification they have been digitally signed using a certificate that is issued by a Certificate Authority (CA) that is recognized and approved by the organization. blocks CWE-348