Message forgery via zero-length HMAC comparison
Published Jun 6, 2024 · Updated Mar 17, 2026
Improper authenticity verification in ClusterLabs Booth 1.0-283.1 allows remote attackers to submit messages with invalid HMACs. The authentication path passes an attacker-selected hash identifier to gcry_md_get_algo_dlen(), then uses its zero return value as the memcmp length without rejecting the unknown algorithm. Network access to a Booth server and an unsupported hash identifier are required; accepted forged messages can alter cluster ticket decisions.
Summary
What happened
Improper authenticity verification in ClusterLabs Booth 1.0-283.1 allows remote attackers to submit messages with invalid HMACs. The authentication path passes an attacker-selected hash identifier to gcry_md_get_algo_dlen(), then uses its zero return value as the memcmp length without rejecting the unknown algorithm. Network access to a Booth server and an unsupported hash identifier are required; accepted forged messages can alter cluster ticket decisions.
The record
- CVE
- CVE-2024-3049
- Published
- Jun 6, 2024
- Updated
- Mar 17, 2026
- Vendor
- Red Hat
- Product
- Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.6 Telecommunications Update Service
- Classifications
- CWE-345, T1565
- Attack vector
- network
- Privileges
- unauthenticated
Timeline
How it unfolded
- Jun 6, 2024CVE publishedPublication date reported by the CVE source.
- Mar 17, 2026Record updatedLatest update available in the CVE record.
Exploitability
Present is not the same as exploitable
Compare your product and version with the public record. A matching version still requires validation against your environment.
Is a vulnerable build present?
Affected versions are unavailable in this record. Check the vendor advisory for version and patch details.
What conditions does exploitation require?
What is affected?
Published CVSS scores
CVSS describes severity. EPSS estimates exploitation probability.
Attacks
What attackers are doing with it
Daily unique IPs observed by Shadowserver honeypots for known exploited vulnerabilities (KEVs). Missing observations do not establish an absence of attacks.
Weakness, pattern, technique
Public exploit references
No public exploit references are available in this record.
Labels summarize the accepted research assessment. They do not indicate a test against your environment.
Technologies
Your stack
See the directory against your own environment.
Your stack
Check the software in your environment
Book a demo to see how Hinoki identifies affected software and validates exploitability in your environment.
Book a demo