CVE Tools

CVE-2024-35196

Slack integration leaks sensitive information in logs in Sentry

No known exploitation. EPSS puts it in the 45th percentile. A vendor fix is available.

Published Updated Sources: CVE.org, NVD, GitHub

What to do

The vendor has published a fix. Version details are below where the sources state them.

What it is

From the CVE record

Sentry is a developer-first error tracking and performance monitoring platform. Sentry's Slack integration incorrectly records the incoming request body in logs. This request data can contain sensitive information, including the deprecated Slack verification token. With this verification token, it is possible under specific configurations, an attacker can forge requests and act as the Slack integration. The request body is leaked in log entries matching `event == "slack.*" && name == "sentry.integrations.slack" && request_data == *`. The deprecated slack verification token, will be found in the `request_data.token` key. **SaaS users** do not need to take any action. **Self-hosted users** should upgrade to version 24.5.0 or higher, rotate their Slack verification token, and use the Slack Signing Secret instead of the verification token. For users only using the `slack.signing-secret` in their self-hosted configuration, the legacy verification token is not used to verify the webhook payload. It is ignored. Users unable to upgrade should either set the `slack.signing-secret` instead of `slack.verification-token`. The signing secret is Slack's recommended way of authenticating webhooks. By having `slack.singing-secret` set, Sentry self-hosted will no longer use the verification token for authentication of the webhooks, regardless of whether `slack.verification-token` is set or not. Alternatively if the self-hosted instance is unable to be upgraded or re-configured to use the `slack.signing-secret`, the logging configuration can be adjusted to not generate logs from the integration. The default logging configuration can be found in `src/sentry/conf/server.py`. **Services should be restarted once the configuration change is saved.**

In plain language

No plain-language summary for this CVE yet.

Exploitation

Where each signal puts this CVE on the scale from published to confirmed exploited.

EPSS45th
CISA KEV

Not in the catalog. CISA has not confirmed exploitation.

Public exploits

No public exploit or proof of concept found in the sources we track.

EPSS

0.6% chance of exploitation activity in the next 30 days, which ranks it in the 45th percentile of scored CVEs.

Exploit Prediction Scoring System, FIRST.org. A probability, not a confirmation.

Lifecycle

5 events over 174 days, from the signal feeds we watch.

  1. Patch availablerecord updated
  2. Publishedweakness classified, att&ck mapped

Affected products

Technical detail

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N

Scored 2.0 by NVD.

How it is reached

  • Attack Vector NetworkExploitable remotely over the network without any special conditions
  • Attack Complexity HighRequires specific conditions like a race condition or non-default configuration
  • Privileges Required HighRequires admin or elevated privileges
  • User Interaction RequiredA user must click a link, open a file, or perform some action

Scope

  • Scope UnchangedImpact is limited to the vulnerable component itself

Impact if exploited

  • Confidentiality LowSome restricted information is disclosed, but limited in scope
  • Integrity NoneNo integrity impact
  • Availability NoneNo availability impact

Weaknesses

ATT&CK techniques

Mapped from the weaknesses above (CWE to ATT&CK), not observed in attacks.

Sources

Watch the software you run.

My Stack ranks new CVEs for your products by real-world exploitation, so the next serious one reaches you without reading every advisory.

We'll flag the next CVE, public exploit or patch for Sentry, not every advisory.

We use analytics cookies to see which pages and articles actually help people. Decline and none of them run — the site works the same. What we store