basicsecurity.net
Proof, not just disclosure.
Threats / Apache / CVE-2024-38856
CVE-2024-38856 · EUVD no mirror located · GCVE no mirror located Verified 2026-06-22

Apache OFBiz vulnerability

Apache OFBiz contains an incorrect authorization vulnerability allowing unauthenticated remote code execution through Groovy payload injection in the OFBiz user process.

Verdict

Today item — known-exploited.

An unauthenticated attacker can bypass authorization controls to inject and execute arbitrary Groovy code within OFBiz, achieving remote code execution. This vulnerability is actively exploited in the wild with high exploit probability.

CISA KEV Yes · 2024-08-273EPSS 0.99427 (verify live)4Exploit Weaponized · public PoC5
01

Is it exploitable?

— the evidence, ranked above the score
Exploit available
Fully weaponized — public exploit code is cataloged for this vulnerability.We link the existence of the exploit; we do not host or redistribute payloads.
Reported exploitation
26 independent public reports of in-the-wild exploitation are cataloged.Distinct reporting sources (vendor, incident response, government); open them for the underlying claims.
Exploited in the wild
Listed in the CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog (added 2024-08-27).
CISA KEV ↗Confirmed
Probability (EPSS)
EPSS 0.99427 — modeled likelihood of exploitation activity.EPSS is a daily-changing model output — open the source for today's value.
Severity / affected
Affected: Apache, OFBiz. Confirm exact fixed builds in the vendor advisory.
NVD ↗Reported
Weakness (CWE)
Mapped to CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization — weakness family: Authorization / access control.CWE assignment from the public NVD record; the weakness class drives how the flaw is exploited.
NVD ↗Reported
WeaknessCWE-863 · Incorrect AuthorizationAuthorization / access control
02

Who’s exploiting it?

— attribution turns risk into urgency
Attribution not established

No confirmed (advisory-backed) threat-actor attribution is established for this record. Absence of a named actor is not absence of compromise — see Coverage & confidence.

03

Why it matters

— the attack path, told twice: adversary, then board
1

Front door — unauthenticated access narrative 1

Attacker
I identify that OFBiz fails to properly enforce authorization on a code execution endpoint, allowing unauthenticated access.
Business
The organization's OFBiz deployment is exposed to unauthorized access without requiring valid credentials.
2

Keys to the kingdom — privilege/identity takeover narrative 2

Attacker
I craft a malicious Groovy payload and submit it through the vulnerable endpoint in the OFBiz user process context.
Business
Arbitrary code executes with OFBiz application privileges, bypassing all authentication and authorization controls.
3

Lateral reach — past segmentation narrative 3

Attacker
I achieve remote code execution and establish persistence or lateral movement within the compromised system.
Business
The attacker gains full control of the OFBiz application server and potentially the underlying infrastructure.
04

What to do

— defensible action
  • Remediate per the vendor advisory — confirm the fixed build for your version and verify exposure.1
Say it to the boardA vulnerability with this evidence profile is a defensible budget line, not a backlog ticket — fund the change against the proof above.
05

Coverage & confidence

— what we know, and what we don’t

Established (cited)

  • KEV listing (CISA)
  • EPSS probability (FIRST)
  • Weaponized exploit available (VulnCheck)
  • 26 reported-exploitation source(s)
  • CWE weakness mapping (NVD)
  • Public exploit availability
  • Catalogued by apache (CNA)
  • Named finder/reporter credit (CVE.org)
  • Coverage gaps — stated, not hidden

  • No EUVD / GCVE mirror in feed — single-authority dependency for the identifier.
  • EPSS & exposure are time-varying; verify live at the source.
  • Threat-actor attribution not established from feed data — absence of a name is not absence of compromise.
  • Disclosure & credit2