CVE-2024-12289
Hashicorp Boundary 0.8.0 – 0.16.4
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
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, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Junk Data (T1001.001); ranked at the 32th 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
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-3526
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
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
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.
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.
Secure SDLC mandates exception-handling and cleanup practices that reduce improper state after thrown exceptions.
A.8.26 requires identifying and specifying security requirements (including resilience against attacks like SQL injection) during development or acquisition; it does not itself implement exception handling or cleanup logic that would stop CWE-460 from being exploitable.
A.8.27 mandates establishing and applying secure engineering principles (including secure-by-design, least privilege, fail-securely, and design reviews) but does not itself stop an exception-cleanup defect from being introduced in code or from being exploitable once present; the weakness can still be exploited.
Hardening callouts derived
DISA STIG baselines are authored against specific weaknesses. Where this CVE cites a broad weakness class, the mapping is not asserted at that abstraction (owner ruling, 2026-09-25: grade only at Base and below), so no rule is shown here rather than a rule shown against the wrong grain.
- No fine-grained STIG row for CWE-665, a class-level weakness. Rules are authored against its narrower children: CWE-770.