CVE-2024-23648
Pimcore Admin Classic Bundle ≤ 1.2.3
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/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-2024-23648 is a high-severity Injection (CWE-74) vulnerability in Pimcore Admin Classic Bundle. Its CVSS base score is 8.8 (High).
Operationally, ranked in the top 43% 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 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-2024-0388
Vulnerability Data
Pimcore's Admin Classic Bundle provides a backend user interface for Pimcore. The password reset functionality sends to the the user requesting a password change an email containing an URL to reset its password. The URL sent contains a unique token,…
more
valid during 24 hours, allowing the user to reset its password. This token is highly sensitive ; as an attacker able to retrieve it would be able to resets the user's password. Prior to version 1.2.3, the reset-password URL is crafted using the "Host" HTTP header of the request sent to request a password reset. This way, an external attacker could send password requests for users, but specify a "Host" header of a website that they control. If the user receiving the mail clicks on the link, the attacker would retrieve the reset token of the victim and perform account takeover. Version 1.2.3 fixes this issue.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
SI-10 directly requires validation of information inputs to reject malformed or special-element content before it reaches downstream parsers.
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.
Logging supports detection of injection attempts but does not prevent the weakness.
Monitoring activities can identify active injection attacks after they occur.
A.8.25 mandates a secure SDLC process that includes secure coding guidelines, security requirements, checkpoints, testing (scans/penetration), and developer training to reduce injection flaws, but does not itself enforce or guarantee neutralization of special elements at runtime.
Application security requirements explicitly call for controls against injection attacks in software design.
A.8.27 mandates security-by-design principles (including distrust external input, data validation/sanitization, secure architecture layers, and design reviews against attack patterns) that reach injection when applied to output construction; this stops exploitation for a minority slice (e.g. where principles drive sanitization) but leaves most code-level injection defects untouched without further implementation rigor.
Secure coding standards require proper neutralization of special elements, directly addressing CWE-74.
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-74, a class-level weakness, and none of its children carries one either.