CVE-2024-32971
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2024-32971 is a critical-severity Expected Behavior Violation (CWE-440) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 9.0 (Critical).
Operationally, 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 SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SI-6 (Security and Privacy Function Verification) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-1741
Vulnerability Data
Apollo Router is a configurable, graph router written in Rust to run a federated supergraph that uses Apollo Federation 2. The affected versions of Apollo Router contain a bug that in limited circumstances, could lead to unexpected operations being executed…
more
which can result in unintended data or effects. This only affects Router instances configured to use distributed query plan caching. The root cause of this defect is a bug in Apollo Router’s cache retrieval logic: When this defect is present and distributed query planning caching is enabled, asking the Router to execute an operation (whether it is a query, a mutation, or a subscription) may result in an unexpected variation of that operation being executed or the generation of unexpected errors. The issue stems from inadvertently executing a modified version of a previously executed operation, whose query plan is stored in the underlying cache (specifically, Redis). Depending on the type of the operation, the result may vary. For a query, results may be fetched that don’t match what was requested (e.g., rather than running `fetchUsers(type: ENTERPRISE)` the Router may run `fetchUsers(type: TRIAL)`. For a mutation, this may result in incorrect mutations being sent to underlying subgraph servers (e.g., rather than sending `deleteUser(id: 10)` to a subgraph, the Router may run `deleteUser(id: 12)`. Users who are using distributed query plan caching, are advised to either upgrade to version 1.45.1 or above or downgrade to version 1.43.2 of the Apollo Router. Apollo Router versions 1.44.0 or 1.45.0 are not recommended for use and have been withdrawn. Users unable to upgrade can disable distributed query plan caching to mitigate this issue.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V9.2.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation directly checks whether implemented functions match their specifications.
Security function verification confirms that functions operate according to their defined expected behavior.
Requiring a documented development process and supporting tools reduces the chance that incorrect control-flow logic is introduced in the first place.
Requiring a documented security architecture and design reduces the chance that implementation deviates from intended behavior.
Flaw identification and remediation processes can locate and correct control-flow errors once they manifest as incorrect runtime behavior.
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 specification compliance and catch expected-behavior violations during development.
Security testing and exercises help discover behavior deviations before deployment.
Vulnerability identification can surface spec-violating flaws, while eliminating the weakness reduces some vulnerability backlog.
Routine software maintenance and patching can remediate discovered specification violations.
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.
Security testing in development and acceptance validates that functions behave as specified.
Secure development life cycle mandates verification against specifications, directly reducing expected-behavior violations.
Application security requirements explicitly define expected behavior that must be met.
Secure coding practices enforce adherence to functional specifications during implementation.
Change management can catch specification deviations introduced by modifications.
Documented operating procedures reduce the chance that functions deviate from intended behavior.