Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:H/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-2024-56529 is a high-severity Session Fixation (CWE-384) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 7.1 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Steal Web Session Cookie (T1539); ranked at the 35th 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 SC-23 (Session Authenticity) and AC-12 (Session Termination) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
CVE-2024-56529 is a session fixation vulnerability (CWE-384) in the web panel of Mailcow through version 2024-11b. Published on 2025-01-28, it carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.1 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:N), indicating network-accessible exploitation with low complexity, no privileges required, and user interaction needed, resulting in low confidentiality impact, high integrity impact, and no availability impact.
Remote attackers without privileges can exploit this vulnerability by setting a session identifier on a victim's browser when HSTS is disabled. After the victim authenticates by logging into the web panel, the session identifier becomes valid for authenticated access, enabling the attacker to hijack the session and access the victim's web panel using the same identifier.
Mitigation details are available in the vendor's security advisory at https://github.com/mailcow/mailcow-dockerized/security/advisories/GHSA-23c8-4wwr-g3c6.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-53178
Vulnerability Data
Mailcow through 2024-11b has a session fixation vulnerability in the web panel. It allows remote attackers to set a session identifier when HSTS is disabled on a victim's browser. After a user logs in, they are authenticated and the session…
more
identifier is valid. Then, a remote attacker can access the victim's web panel with the same session identifier.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V4.4.4V7.6.2
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Requires protection of session authenticity, which directly stops an attacker from using a stolen or fixed session identifier after authentication.
Limits the lifetime of any session (fixed or not), thereby reducing the window during which a stolen identifier remains usable.
Enforces that only properly authorized (i.e., freshly authenticated) sessions can access resources, making a pre-existing fixed session ID unusable.
Forces re-authentication under defined conditions, which should result in issuance of a fresh session identifier and invalidation of any prior one.
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.
Proper authentication processes must invalidate prior session identifiers to prevent fixation attacks.
Managing identities and credentials includes handling session identifiers as temporary credentials that must be invalidated on re-authentication.
Protecting and verifying identity assertions encompasses secure handling and regeneration of session tokens.
Configuration baselines can enforce session regeneration and timeout settings that block fixation.
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 can detect session-fixation issues, yet the weakness absence does not replace comprehensive testing.
Access-control policy can mandate session invalidation on re-authentication, but does not prescribe the technical mechanism.
Identity-management procedures can require new session tokens after login, yet the control is broader than session handling.
Authentication-information rules can include session-token lifecycle requirements, but the control focuses on credential management.
Secure-SDLC requirement can embed session-fixation checks, but eliminating the weakness does not satisfy the full SDLC control.
Application-security requirements can specify session handling, yet the weakness fix alone does not meet the broader requirement.