Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/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-2024-23634 is a medium-severity Improper Input Validation (CWE-20) vulnerability in Geoserver Geoserver. Its CVSS base score is 6.0 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique NTDS (T1003.003); ranked in the top 48% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-0853
Vulnerability Data
GeoServer is an open source software server written in Java that allows users to share and edit geospatial data. An arbitrary file renaming vulnerability exists in versions prior to 2.23.5 and 2.24.2 that enables an authenticated administrator with permissions to…
more
modify stores through the REST Coverage Store or Data Store API to rename arbitrary files and directories with a name that does not end in `.zip`. Store file uploads rename zip files to have a `.zip` extension if it doesn't already have one before unzipping the file. This is fine for file and url upload methods where the files will be in a specific subdirectory of the data directory but, when using the external upload method, this allows arbitrary files and directories to be renamed. Renaming GeoServer files will most likely result in a denial of service, either completely preventing GeoServer from running or effectively deleting specific resources (such as a workspace, layer or style). In some cases, renaming GeoServer files could revert to the default settings for that file which could be relatively harmless like removing contact information or have more serious consequences like allowing users to make OGC requests that the customized settings would have prevented them from making. The impact of renaming non-GeoServer files depends on the specific environment although some sort of denial of service is a likely outcome. Versions 2.23.5 and 2.24.2 contain a fix for this issue.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V5.3.2
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover missing input validation through analysis or test cases.
SI-10 directly requires validity checks on information inputs, structurally preventing improper or missing validation.
Enforces authorization checks on the actual resource accessed, blocking unauthorized files even when a malicious path is supplied.
Least-privilege limits the set of files or directories any subject can affect, shrinking the blast radius of a path-control flaw.
Requiring documented development standards and tools can embed input-validation practices into the engineering process.
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.
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.
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-20, a class-level weakness, and none of its children carries one either.