Cyber Resilience

CVE-2024-12289

Hashicorp Boundary 0.8.0 – 0.16.4

Published
12 December 2024
Modified
29 December 2025
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v3.1 5.9
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
EPSS Score 0.0038 31th percentile
Risk Priority 46 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2024-12289 is a medium-severity Improper Cleanup on Thrown Exception (CWE-460) vulnerability in Hashicorp Boundary. Its CVSS base score is 5.9 (Medium).

Operationally, ranked at the 31th 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 SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SC-24 (Fail in Known State) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

Boundary Community Edition and Boundary Enterprise (“Boundary”) incorrectly handle HTTP requests during the initialization of the Boundary controller, which may cause the Boundary server to terminate prematurely. Boundary is only vulnerable to this flaw during the initialization of the Boundary…

more

controller, which on average is measured in milliseconds during the Boundary startup process. This vulnerability, CVE-2024-12289, is fixed in Boundary Community Edition and Boundary Enterprise 0.16.4, 0.17.3, 0.18.2.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2024-1052Same product: Hashicorp Boundary
CVE-2023-0690Same product: Hashicorp Boundary
CVE-2023-3300Same vendor: Hashicorp
CVE-2026-5052Same vendor: Hashicorp
CVE-2023-3299Same vendor: Hashicorp
CVE-2024-5798Same vendor: Hashicorp
CVE-2025-3744Same vendor: Hashicorp
CVE-2023-1297Same vendor: Hashicorp
CVE-2025-6000Same vendor: Hashicorp
CVE-2024-0831Same vendor: Hashicorp

Affected Assets

hashicorp
boundary
0.8.0 — 0.16.4 · 0.17.0 — 0.17.3 · 0.18.0 — 0.18.2

Mitigating Controls

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

Developer testing and evaluation directly exercises initialization paths and can reveal missing or incorrect resource setup.

Requires the system to fail to a known state on indicated failures, directly forcing proper state cleanup instead of leaving inconsistent state after an exception.

Mandates explicit fail-safe procedures on failures, which structurally enforces cleanup actions that the weakness omits.

Requires application of security engineering principles (e.g., fail-safe, complete mediation) during design that would eliminate improper exception cleanup.

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.

PR.PS-06 mostly match
prevents

Secure SDLC practices directly enforce proper exception handling and resource cleanup.

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.

finds

Security testing can detect missing cleanup paths, thereby mitigating the weakness before deployment.

prevents

Configuration management can enforce secure defaults and initialization settings but is not the primary control for code-level initialization.

prevents

Secure SDLC mandates exception-handling and cleanup practices that reduce improper state after thrown exceptions.

prevents

Application security requirements can specify robust exception handling and resource-release rules.

prevents

Secure architecture principles include designing for safe failure and guaranteed cleanup on exceptions.

prevents

Secure coding standards directly require proper resource release and state restoration after exceptions.

References