CVE-2021-41111: Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key in Rundeck
Noroxi assessment
Priority: Monitor (action score 21/100)
- The sources we track (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, Metasploit, Nuclei, GitHub) show no public exploit code or exploitation in the wild.
- Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days: 0.55% (FIRST EPSS).
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it. A low-privileged account is enough. No user action is required. No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
- No fixed version is recorded, but the references include a patch (commit or PR) link.
Low priority for now. See the fix and affected versions sections below.
Generated automatically from the record's data: CVSS (NVD and CNA), CISA KEV and SSVC, FIRST EPSS, exploit sources, fixed versions. How we calculate it
Primary sources: NVD · CVE.org · FIRST EPSS
Rundeck is an open source automation service with a web console, command line tools and a WebAPI. Prior to versions 3.4.5 and 3.3.15, an authenticated user with authorization to read webhooks in one project can craft a request to reveal Webhook definitions and tokens in another project. The user could use the revealed webhook tokens to trigger webhooks. Severity depends on trust level of authenticated users and whether any webhooks exist that trigger sensitive actions. There are patches for this vulnerability in versions 3.4.5 and 3.3.15. There are currently no known workarounds.
- Published
- Feb 28, 2022
- Updated
- Jun 17, 2026
- EPSS
- 0.5% · 46th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-639
Report tools
Action score
21
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 21 / 40 · 5.4 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 0 / 30 · 0.5%
CISA SSVC decision
- Exploitation
- none
- Automatable
- no
- Technical impact
- partial
Vulnrichment: CISA's decision-tree inputs.
CNA vs NVD score
- NVD
- 5.4
- CNA · GitHub_M
- 6.4
- 1.0 point gap
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
The score given by the assigning authority versus NVD’s independent score. A gap means the severity is contested.
Get told when this record changes
- Not in KEV: no record of exploitation in the wild
- No public exploit code on record
- No fixed version yet
If any of these changes, we'll tell you in the daily email digest.
Running WordPress? Scan your site free with WP Lens
Noroxi analysis
What does it mean in your environment?
The assessment above is generated automatically from the record's data; it doesn't know your environment. Our team verifies on your systems whether this vulnerability is actually exploitable and which mitigation is enough.
We use this product, ask for helpAffected systems
Is your version affected?
Pick the product and type the version you run. It's compared with this record's version ranges in your browser; the version isn't sent anywhere.
| Vendor | Product | CPE |
|---|---|---|
| pagerduty | rundeck | cpe:2.3:a:pagerduty:rundeck |
Affected versions
NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.
- pagerduty rundeckbefore 3.3.15
- pagerduty rundeck3.4.0 and later · before 3.4.5
Versions reported by the vendor
Affected version ranges reported by the assigning authority (GitHub_M). Independent of NVD's CPE analysis and usually ahead of it.
rundeck rundeck
- < 3.3.15, >= 3.4.0, < 3.4.5affected
Same product
pagerduty: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2022-29186Use of Hard-coded Cryptographic Key in rundeck/rundeck, rundeckpro/enterprise39Monitor
- CVE-2021-39132YAML deserialization can run untrusted code36Monitor
- CVE-2021-41112Missing Authorization in Rundeck32Monitor
Published before and after this one in the same product
- ← EarlierCVE-2020-11009Apr 29, 2020 · IDOR can reveal execution data and logs to unauthorized user in Rundeck26Monitor
- ← EarlierCVE-2021-39133Aug 30, 2021 · Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) can run untrusted code on Rundeck server27Monitor
- Later →CVE-2022-31044Jun 15, 2022 · Plaintext Storage of Keys and Passwords in Rundeck and PagerDuty Process Automation30Monitor
Remediation
Which version to upgrade to
Fix versions compiled from the vendor, package registries and Microsoft. Verify the vendor's note before upgrading.
No fix version is recorded for this entry. Check the references for vendor advisories.
Exploit status
No known public exploit
No public exploit has been observed yet. That doesn't mean you're safe, only that the bar is a little higher.
Research context
For pentesters and researchers: attack profile, score disagreement, timeline, patch commits, credits, variant and chain candidates, bug bounty scope. All derived from existing data; no exploit code.
Timeline
From publication to today: proof of concept, Metasploit module, CISA KEV and fix record. Dates are as reported by the sources.
No dated events beyond publication.
FIRST EPSS daily score; only changes of 0.01 or more are recorded (step chart).
Patch and commit links
Commit, PR and diff links among the references. A starting point for patch-diffing and variant hunting; fixes, not exploits.
Credits
All researchersFinders, reporters and analysts named in the CNA record. Click a name for that researcher’s other records.
No credits in the CNA record.
Variant candidates
Same product, same weakness class, within 18 months. If the patch missed the root cause, the sibling bug is here.
No nightly-computed relations.
Chain candidates
An authentication bypass and a privilege-requiring bug in the same product, published close together: combined they may become an unauthenticated path.
—
Bug bounty scope
The product’s vendor appears in a public program. Matched by name; verify the scope text in the program.
Technical details
Attack conditions
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it.
- A low-privileged account is enough.
- No user action is required.
- No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
If successful
- Confidentiality
- low · data can be read
- Integrity
- low · data or configuration can be modified
- Availability
- none
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality impact
- Low
- Integrity impact
- Low
- Availability impact
- None
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-639 · Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled KeyCVSS vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
nvd-primary
Root cause
The endpoint fetches the record by the ID sent in the request, but never checks whether the record belongs to the requesting user.
The bug in code
The whole CWE-639 classA representative example of this vulnerability class. Not the vendor's source code; it shows the faulty pattern and its fix.
Vulnerable
const invoice = await Invoice.findById(req.params.id);
res.json(invoice);Fixed
const invoice = await Invoice.findOne({
id: req.params.id,
ownerId: req.user.id,
});
if (!invoice) return res.sendStatus(404);
res.json(invoice);Attack context
MITRE CAPEC attack patterns and ATT&CK techniques for this weakness class (CWE). A starting point for detection rules and threat hunting.
MITRE has no CAPEC/ATT&CK mapping for this CWE.
Change log
No changes recorded on tracked fields yet. Score, KEV, exploit maturity and fix status changes appear here.
References
Show all references (1 more)Show less
Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.