Cyber Resilience

CVE-2024-56321

Path Traversal in Thoughtworks Gocd 18.9.0 – 24.5.0

Published
03 January 2025
Modified
01 August 2025
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v3.1 3.8
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
EPSS Score 0.0055 43th percentile
Risk Priority 35 floored blend · peak EPSS

CVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.

Summary

CVE-2024-56321 is a low-severity Improper Input Validation (CWE-20) vulnerability in Thoughtworks Gocd. Its CVSS base score is 3.8 (Low).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 43th 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 SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

GoCD is a continuous deliver server. GoCD versions 18.9.0 through 24.4.0 (inclusive) can allow GoCD admins to abuse the backup configuration "post-backup script" feature to potentially execute arbitrary scripts on the hosting server or container as GoCD's user, rather than…

more

pre-configured scripts. In practice the impact of this vulnerability is limited, as in most configurations a user who can log into the GoCD UI as an admin also has host administration permissions for the host/container that GoCD runs on, in order to manage artifact storage and other service-level configuration options. Additionally, since a GoCD admin has ability to configure and schedule pipelines tasks on all GoCD agents available to the server, the fundamental functionality of GoCD allows co-ordinated task execution similar to that of post-backup-scripts. However in restricted environments where the host administration is separated from the role of a GoCD admin, this may be unexpected. The issue is fixed in GoCD 24.5.0. Post-backup scripts can no longer be executed from within certain sensitive locations on the GoCD server. No known workarounds are available.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques

T1190 Exploit Public-Facing Application Initial Access
Adversaries may attempt to exploit a weakness in an Internet-facing host or system to initially access a network.
T1036.001 Invalid Code Signature Stealth
Adversaries may attempt to mimic features of valid code signatures to increase the chance of deceiving a user, analyst, or tool.
T1068 Exploitation for Privilege Escalation Privilege Escalation
Adversaries may exploit software vulnerabilities in an attempt to elevate privileges.
T1203 Exploitation for Client Execution Execution
Adversaries may exploit software vulnerabilities in client applications to execute code.
T1210 Exploitation of Remote Services Lateral Movement
Adversaries may exploit remote services to gain unauthorized access to internal systems once inside of a network.
Derived from this CVE’s CWE(s) via the direct CWE→ATT&CK cross-walk.

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2024-56320Same product: Thoughtworks Gocd
CVE-2024-56324Same product: Thoughtworks Gocd
CVE-2024-56322Same product: Thoughtworks Gocd
CVE-2024-28866Same product: Thoughtworks Gocd
CVE-2023-28629Same product: Thoughtworks Gocd
CVE-2023-28630Same product: Thoughtworks Gocd
CVE-2023-28030Shared CWE-20
CVE-2026-13962Shared CWE-20
CVE-2023-49291Shared CWE-20
CVE-2025-66864Shared CWE-20

Affected Assets

thoughtworks
gocd
18.9.0 — 24.5.0

Mitigating Controls

Control response

Prevent
Stop it (NIST 800-53)

—

Detect
Catch it (NIST detect / respond)

—

Harden
Shrink the surface (DISA STIG)
  • 6 hardening rules · 3 OS baselines
Validate
Prove the fix (OWASP ASVS)

—

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.

Enforced access authorizations can limit which resources are reachable even if a traversal succeeds.

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.

PR.PS-06 mostly match
prevents

Secure SDLC practices directly require and enforce input validation during development.

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.

finds

Testing against a defined set of requirements and using code review plus vulnerability scanning forces validation of inputs and handling of unanticipated conditions, reducing the chance that malformed data will be accepted.

prevents

Secure-coding guidelines and mandatory security testing (including code scans) compel developers to validate and sanitize inputs at design and implementation time, lowering the incidence of malformed or malicious data reaching downstream components.

prevents

Mandating input controls that include integrity checks and input validation ensures that untrusted data is examined before use, blocking the root cause of many injection and malformed-data weaknesses.

prevents

Security-by-design principles explicitly call for data validation and sanitization at every layer, reducing the chance that malformed or malicious input will be processed without scrutiny.

prevents

Requiring language-specific secure coding standards, peer review, SAST and documented mitigation of common programming errors forces validation of all inputs before they are trusted.

mitigates

Information access restriction limits which files can be reached but does not address the path-construction flaw itself.

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).

RHEL 8 (1 rule)
  • V-230265 RHEL 8 must prevent the installation of software, patches, service packs, device drivers, or operating system components of local packages without verification they have been digitally signed using a certificate that is issued by a Certificate Authority (CA) that is recognized and approved by the organization. prevents CWE-20

References