CVE-2024-53253
No source can show you its own past. This one can.
Print this page to keep the view as it stands on this date. Everything hidden behind a disclosure opens, and every receipt prints with its value.
Sentry's improper error handling leaks Application Integration Client Secret
rank 15 = 0 + 13 + 0 + 2 + 0
rank@v1 · backlog
Someone is already using it
CISA KEV catalog · public proof-of-concept · FIRST EPSS
EPSS 0.00651 · without this subject the record ranks 15
What it costs you if it fires
NVD CVSS base score, then the CNA's own
CVSS 5.3, from the CNA · without this subject the record ranks 2
It is getting worse, not staying still
FIRST EPSS series, rescorings and bad loads removed
no persisting rise in 365 days · without this subject the record ranks 15
How much of the world it touches
NVD CPE configurations
1 product in the CPE ranges · without this subject the record ranks 13
Someone else already set the date
CISA KEV remediation due date
no CISA due date · without this subject the record ranks 15
$7,810 = $4.99M incident cost x 0.24048551839932833 exposure x 0.00651 likelihood
udv@v1 · unaudited · wrong for you until you say what you run
$4.99M is the cost of a breach that happened, from IBM Cost of a Data Breach Report 2026, global average. It is not the value of any asset of yours. That average already covers breaches of every severity, so scaling it by exposure understates a partial-impact record. That is an assumption, not a measurement. Your own asset value goes in the decision record.
Hindsight · the state
Foresight · where to check next
This record is one instance of CWE-209, generation of error message containing sensitive information. The index holds 620 prior instances of this class, 3 KEV-listed. The nearest of its KEV-listed records are drawn beside this. taxonomy@v1
Running getsentry sentry? Check your version
A deterministic range check against the ranges this record publishes. It tells you where a version sits in the record, not whether your deployment is exploitable. No account needed.
Watch this record
Matches your own product list against every record this index holds, and tells you when one of them moves.
Set up a watchlist (needs a Practitioner account)
Record your call
Keep your verdict, your reason and the evidence together. The record takes its date when you save it.
AcceptDeferPatch by…Not affectedMitigatedChoose your verdict, then sign in or use an email link. Your first 100 records are free. Evidence is frozen when the record is created.
Private to your organization unless you share it. Put the proof link in your ticket so a reviewer can inspect the basis for your call. See how decision records work.
Harm, if it fires from the vector and the weakness
Written for the ticket you're about to file.
CISA KEV & Federal Remediation Deadline from the record and CISA
The fix, and how long it's been waiting.
Exploit Status & Known PoCs a ladder, not a score
Current rung: Nothing observed in held sources.
- RUNG 1Nothing observed in held sources
- RUNG 2Proof-of-concept published
- RUNG 3Exploited in the wild · CISA KEV listed
- RUNG 4Ransomware campaign use known
A rung lights from a row in the index, never from an assessment. "Held sources" is the true scope of the claim: this index reads the CVE record, NVD, CISA KEV, FIRST's EPSS and public proof-of-concept repositories, and it does not observe attacks.
What it is stated by the CNA
Sentry is an error tracking and performance monitoring platform. Version 24.11.0, and only version 24.11.0, is vulnerable to a scenario where a specific error message generated by the Sentry platform could include a plaintext Client ID and Client Secret for an application integration. The Client ID and Client Secret would not be displayed in the UI, but would be returned in the underlying HTTP response to the end user. receipt
Read the rest of the CNA's description
This could occur under the following conditions: An app installation made use of a Search UI component with the `async` flag set to true (default: true); auser types types into the Search Component which creates a request to the third-party for search or query results; and that third-party response may then fail validation and Sentry would return the `select-requester.invalid-response` error code along with a serialized version of a Sentry application containing the integration Client Secret. Should this error be found, it's reasonable to assume the potential exposure of an integration Client Secret. However, an ID and Secret pair alone does not provide direct access to any data. For that secret to be abused an attacker would also need to obtain a valid API token for a Sentry application. Sentry SaaS users do not need to take any action. For Sentry SaaS users, only a single application integration was impacted and the owner has rotated their Client Secret. No abuse of the leaked Client Secret has occurred. As of time of publication, a fix is available for users of Sentry self-hosted in pull request 81038. Sentry self-hosted does not ship with any application integrations. This could only impact self-hosted users that maintain their own integrations. In that case, search for a `select-requester.invalid-response` event. Please note that this error was also shared with another event unrelated to this advisory so Sentry self-hosted users will also need to review the parameters logged for each named event. Sentry self-hosted users may review `select_requester.py` for the instances where these errors can be generated. With the security fix this is no longer a shared event type. Sentry self-hosted users may not install version 24.11.0 and instead wait for the next release. Self-hosted instance that are already running the affected version may consider downgrading to to 24.10.0.
NVD's analysis a second authority
- weakness
- CWE-209
- affected versions
- sentry 24.11.0
- also scored by
- [email protected] 5.3 CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
check it yourself github.com github.com github.com receipt
Movement the material steps
Show all 27 observations
27 observations held. A highlighted step crossed a promotion threshold. A step marked with a scoring model moved because the instrument was replaced, not because the vulnerability changed. receipt
The full biography
The record had been public for 1 year, 9 months when this index was last written.
The pattern, elsewhere
This record is one instance of CWE-209, generation of error message containing sensitive information. The index holds 620 prior instances of this class, 3 KEV-listed. The nearest of its KEV-listed records are drawn beside this. [email protected]
"Matches n of m" counts the attributes the two records can both be compared on: the CVSS metrics they share a version of, any weakness class beyond this one, and the vendor. fit-rules@v1
620 records in this class held. The six above are drawn from the ones CISA has listed as exploited, ranked by how much of the record matches this one. That is why every one of them is KEV-listed: the pool is, so the colour on those spokes says nothing the pool has not already said.
No curated product neighbourhood is held for this product, so the records above are the nearest this index can name. The neighbourhood table covers a small set of products and is extended by hand.
Siblings and hubs
Records related to this one
None. No alias set, and nothing in the corpus cites this identifier or shares its product family within 60 days.
Browse the index from here
These are index-wide views, not findings about CVE-2024-53253.
What usually comes next
Everything above needs no account. What is below is work: assembling it, scoping it to your estate, watching it, and handing it to someone else.