Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/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-2024-28236 is a high-severity Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor (CWE-200) vulnerability in Go-Vela Worker. Its CVSS base score is 7.7 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Token Impersonation/Theft (T1134.001); ranked in the top 49% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to AC-3 (Access Enforcement) and AC-4 (Information Flow Enforcement) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-0985
Vulnerability Data
Vela is a Pipeline Automation (CI/CD) framework built on Linux container technology written in Golang. Vela pipelines can use variable substitution combined with insensitive fields like `parameters`, `image` and `entrypoint` to inject secrets into a plugin/image and — by using…
more
common substitution string manipulation — can bypass log masking and expose secrets without the use of the commands block. This unexpected behavior primarily impacts secrets restricted by the "no commands" option. This can lead to unintended use of the secret value, and increased risk of exposing the secret during image execution bypassing log masking. **To exploit this** the pipeline author must be supplying the secrets to a plugin that is designed in such a way that will print those parameters in logs. Plugin parameters are not designed for sensitive values and are often intentionally printed throughout execution for informational/debugging purposes. Parameters should therefore be treated as insensitive. While Vela provides secrets masking, secrets exposure is not entirely solved by the masking process. A docker image (plugin) can easily expose secrets if they are not handled properly, or altered in some way. There is a responsibility on the end-user to understand how values injected into a plugin are used. This is a risk that exists for many CICD systems (like GitHub Actions) that handle sensitive runtime variables. Rather, the greater risk is that users who restrict a secret to the "no commands" option and use image restriction can still have their secret value exposed via substitution tinkering, which turns the image and command restrictions into a false sense of security. This issue has been addressed in version 0.23.2. Users are advised to upgrade. Users unable to upgrade should not provide sensitive values to plugins that can potentially expose them, especially in `parameters` that are not intended to be used for sensitive values, ensure plugins (especially those that utilize shared secrets) follow best practices to avoid logging parameters that are expected to be sensitive, minimize secrets with `pull_request` events enabled, as this allows users to change pipeline configurations and pull in secrets to steps not typically part of the CI process, make use of the build approval setting, restricting builds from untrusted users, and limit use of shared secrets, as they are less restrictive to access by nature.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 6 hardening rules · 5 OS baselines
V10.4.9V11.7.1V14.1.2V14.2.4
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Access enforcement directly stops unauthorized actors from obtaining sensitive information.
Information flow enforcement structurally prevents sensitive data from reaching unauthorized recipients.
Protection of information at rest prevents unauthorized exposure of stored sensitive data.
Transmission confidentiality mechanisms stop exposure of sensitive data on the wire.
Least privilege reduces the set of actors who can reach sensitive information.
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.AA-05 directly enforces least-privilege authorization that blocks most unauthorized disclosures, yet CWE-200 also arises from logging, error messages, and side-channel paths that access controls alone do not address.
PR.DS-10 mostly prevents CWE-200 by directly eliminating unauthorized access to sensitive data-in-use, yet only partially addresses the weakness because CWE-200 spans many other exposure vectors outside runtime protection.
PR.IR-01's segmentation/zero-trust controls largely eliminate network-level unauthorized access paths that enable exposure, yet CWE-200 spans many additional vectors (API responses, logs, app logic) that network controls alone cannot close.
Secure SDLC practices catch most exposure flaws via design, testing and release controls, yet CWE-200 spans runtime/config issues a single development outcome cannot fully close.
PR.AA-01 supplies proper credential lifecycle controls that reduce unauthorized access paths, yet leaves many other exposure vectors (error messages, logging, side channels, etc.) unaddressed.
Authentication verifies actor identity and is a prerequisite for access decisions, yet addresses only one facet of the broad set of exposure vectors in CWE-200.
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.
Restricting anonymous or unknown access and encrypting high-value information limits the exposure of sensitive data that would otherwise be obtainable by unauthorized actors.
Suppressing system details, error specifics, and previous log-on information until successful authentication reduces the information an unauthenticated attacker can gather.
By requiring owners to assign sensitivity labels and corresponding handling rules, the control ensures that information is not left unmarked and therefore reduces the chance that sensitive data will be exposed to unauthorized actors.
Requiring encryption, access controls, and recipient authentication for transfers directly reduces the chance that sensitive data reaches an unauthorized observer.
Secure delivery, protected storage, and confidentiality of allocation records limit exposure of authentication material to unauthorized observers.
Requiring defined procedures, assigned roles, and technical/organizational measures for handling PII reduces the chance that sensitive personal data will be exposed to unauthorized actors through inadequate handling or missing safeguards.
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` (authoritative rows only; rows rated `none` are excluded).
Ubuntu 22.04 (1 rule)
- V-260470 Ubuntu 22.04 LTS, when booted, must require authentication upon booting into single-user and maintenance modes. prevents CWE-200
Ubuntu 24.04 (2 rules)
- V-270647 Ubuntu 24.04 LTS must not have the telnet package installed. prevents CWE-200
- V-270675 Ubuntu 24.04 LTS when booted must require authentication upon booting into single-user and maintenance modes. prevents CWE-200
Windows 10 (1 rule)
- V-220737 Administrative accounts must not be used with applications that access the Internet, such as web browsers, or with potential Internet sources, such as email. prevents CWE-200
Windows Server 2016 (1 rule)
- V-224974 Domain-created Active Directory Organizational Unit (OU) objects must have proper access control permissions. prevents CWE-200
Windows Server 2019 (1 rule)
- V-205743 Windows Server 2019 organization created Active Directory Organizational Unit (OU) objects must have proper access control permissions. prevents CWE-200