An issue was discovered in Juju that resulted in the leak of the sensitive context ID, which allows a local unprivileged attacker to access
Noroxi assessment
Priority: Monitor (action score 15/100)
- 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: 0.37% (FIRST EPSS).
- Someone with local access to the system can trigger it. A low-privileged account is enough. No user action is required. No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
- Fixed version: Canonical Ltd. Juju 2.9.50, 3.1.9, 3.3.5.
- Severity is disputed: the assigning authority (CNA) scores it 8.8, NVD 3.8.
Low priority for now. Upgrade to Canonical Ltd. Juju 2.9.50, 3.1.9, 3.3.5 or later.
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
An issue was discovered in Juju that resulted in the leak of the sensitive context ID, which allows a local unprivileged attacker to access other sensitive data or relation accessible to the local charm.
- Published
- Jul 29, 2024
- Updated
- Jun 17, 2026
- EPSS
- 0.3% · 30th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-209
Report tools
Action score
15
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 15 / 40 · 3.8 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 0 / 30 · 0.3%
CISA SSVC decision
- Exploitation
- none
- Automatable
- no
- Technical impact
- total
Vulnrichment: CISA's decision-tree inputs.
CNA vs NVD score
- NVD
- 3.8
- CNA · canonical
- 8.8
- 5.0 point gap
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
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
- A fix has been released
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 |
|---|---|---|
| canonical | juju | cpe:2.3:a:canonical:juju |
Affected versions
NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.
- canonical juju2.9 and later · before 2.9.50
- canonical juju3.1 and later · before 3.1.9
- canonical juju3.3 and later · before 3.3.6
- canonical juju3.4 and later · before 3.4.5
- canonical juju3.5 and later · before 3.5.3
Versions reported by the vendor
Affected version ranges reported by the assigning authority (canonical). Independent of NVD's CPE analysis and usually ahead of it.
Canonical Ltd. Juju
- 3.5 and later · before 3.5.3affected · semver
- 3.4 and later · before 3.4.5affected · semver
- 3.3 and later · before 3.3.5affected · semver
- 3.1 and later · before 3.1.9affected · semver
- 2.9 and later · before 2.9.50affected · semver
Package-level exposure
OSV and GitHub Advisory data: ecosystem, package and range. SBOM matching uses this table.
| Ecosystem | Package | Affected range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| Go | github.com/juju/juju | from 0 | — |
| Go | github.com/juju/juju | from 3.0.0 · before 3.1.9 | 3.1.9 |
| Go | github.com/juju/juju | from 3.2.0 · before 3.3.6 | 3.3.6 |
| Go | github.com/juju/juju | from 3.4.0 · before 3.4.5 | 3.4.5 |
| Go | github.com/juju/juju | from 3.5.0 · before 3.5.3 | 3.5.3 |
| Go | github.com/juju/juju | before 2.9.50 | 2.9.50 |
Same product
canonical: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2017-9232Juju before 1.25.12, 2.0.x before 2.0.4, and 2.1.x before 2.1.3 uses a UNIX domain socket without setting appropriate permissions, allowing 60This week
- CVE-2026-4370Improper TLS Client/Server authentication and certificate verification on Database Cluster40Plan
- CVE-2026-32693Unauthorized access to Kubernetes secrets in Juju35Monitor
Published before and after this one in the same product
- ← EarlierCVE-2015-1316Apr 22, 2019 · Juju Joyent provider uploads user's private ssh key by default30Monitor
- Later →CVE-2024-7558Oct 2, 2024 · JUJU_CONTEXT_ID is a predictable authentication secret.32Monitor
- Later →CVE-2024-8037Oct 2, 2024 · Vulnerable juju hook tool abstract UNIX domain socket.26Monitor
Remediation
Which version to upgrade to
Fix versions compiled from the vendor, package registries and Microsoft. Verify the vendor's note before upgrading.
| Product / package | Fixed version | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Canonical Ltd. Juju | 2.9.50 | Vendor (CNA) |
| Canonical Ltd. Juju | 3.1.9 | Vendor (CNA) |
| Canonical Ltd. Juju | 3.3.5 | Vendor (CNA) |
| Canonical Ltd. Juju | 3.4.5 | Vendor (CNA) |
| Canonical Ltd. Juju | 3.5.3 | Vendor (CNA) |
| Go:github.com/juju/juju | 2.9.50 | Package registry (OSV) |
| Go:github.com/juju/juju | 3.1.9 | Package registry (OSV) |
| Go:github.com/juju/juju | 3.3.6 | Package registry (OSV) |
| Go:github.com/juju/juju | 3.4.5 | Package registry (OSV) |
| Go:github.com/juju/juju | 3.5.3 | Package registry (OSV) |
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.
- Pedro Valverde Guimaraesfinder
- Joe Phillipsremediation developer
- Mark Eslercoordinator
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
No known public program.
Source: bounty-targets-data (public HackerOne, Bugcrowd, Intigriti, YesWeHack listings).
Technical details
Attack conditions
- Someone with local access to the system 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
- none
- Availability
- none
Impact can extend beyond the vulnerable component (scope changes).
- Attack vector
- Local
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality impact
- Low
- Integrity impact
- None
- Availability impact
- None
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-209 · Generation of Error Message Containing Sensitive InformationCVSS vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
nvd-primary
Attack context
MITRE CAPEC attack patterns and ATT&CK techniques for this weakness class (CWE). A starting point for detection rules and threat hunting.
Change log
- Fix✗ → ✓
For records you follow, these changes also arrive as notifications. →
References
Show all references (1 more)Show less
Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.