CVE-2026-24000: Fleet has a rate limiting bypass via untrusted client IP headers
Noroxi assessment
Priority: Monitor (action score 27/100)
- 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: 0.43% (FIRST EPSS).
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it. No account or password is required. No user action is required. No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
- According to CISA the attack is automatable: targets can be found by mass scanning.
- Fixed version: github.com/fleetdm/fleet/v4 (Go) 4.80.1.
Low priority for now. Upgrade to github.com/fleetdm/fleet/v4 (Go) 4.80.1 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
Fleet is open source device management software. Prior to version 4.80.1, Fleet trusted client-supplied IP address headers when determining the source IP for incoming requests. This allowed authenticated and unauthenticated clients to spoof their apparent IP address and bypass per-IP rate limiting controls. Fleet determines a client’s public IP address using HTTP headers such as X-Forwarded-For, X-Real-IP, and/or True-Client-IP. These headers were trusted without validation. An attacker could supply arbitrary values in these headers, causing Fleet to treat each request as originating from a different IP address. This could allow an attacker to bypass per-IP rate limits and increase the effectiveness of brute-force or password-spraying attempts against authentication endpoints. This issue does not allow authentication bypass, privilege escalation, data exposure, or remote code execution on its own. Version 4.80.1 contains a patch. As a workaround, run Fleet behind a trusted reverse proxy or load balancer that overwrites client IP headers.
- Published
- May 14, 2026
- Updated
- Oct 26, 2026
- EPSS
- 0.4% · 37th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-290
Report tools
Action score
27
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 27 / 40 · 6.9 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 0 / 30 · 0.4%
CISA SSVC decision
- Exploitation
- none
- Automatable
- yes
- Technical impact
- partial
Vulnrichment: CISA's decision-tree inputs.
CNA vs NVD score
- NVD
- —
- CNA · GitHub_M
- 6.9
- NVD has not scored this yet; the score shown is the CNA’s.
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA: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
- A fix has been released
If any of these changes, we'll tell you in the daily email digest.
Is your version affected? Check itNoroxi 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 |
|---|---|---|
| fleetdm | fleet | cpe:2.3:a:fleetdm:fleet |
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.
fleetdm fleet
- < 4.80.1affected
Affected versions
NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.
- fleetdm fleetbefore 4.80.1
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/fleetdm/fleet/v4 | before 4.80.1 | 4.80.1 |
Same product
fleetdm: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2020-26276SAML authentication vulnerability in Fleet40Plan
- CVE-2026-103264Fleet before 4.87.0 Authentication Bypass via Device Identifiers37Monitor
- CVE-2026-23518Fleet has a JWT signature bypass vulnerability in Azure AD MDM enrollment37Monitor
Published before and after this one in the same product
- ← EarlierCVE-2026-27806Apr 8, 2026 · Fleet Affected by Local Privilege Escalation via Tcl Command Injection in Orbit31Monitor
- ← EarlierCVE-2026-23998May 14, 2026 · Fleet has a Windows MDM management endpoint authentication bypass32Monitor
- Later →CVE-2026-24899May 14, 2026 · Fleet Windows MDM Azure AD JWT Authentication Bypass32Monitor
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Go:github.com/fleetdm/fleet/v4 | 4.80.1 | 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.
Variant candidates
Same product, same weakness class, within 18 months. If the patch missed the root cause, the sibling bug is here.
- CVE-2026-248990 days apartFleet Windows MDM Azure AD JWT Authentication Bypass32Monitor
- CVE-2026-463560 days apartFleet: IP spoofing allows bypassing API rate limiting27Monitor
Chain candidates
An authentication bypass and a privilege-requiring bug in the same product, published close together: combined they may become an unauthenticated path.
- CVE-2026-2780636 days apartFleet Affected by Local Privilege Escalation via Tcl Command Injection in Orbit31Monitor
- CVE-2026-3438648 days apartFleet vulnerable to SQL injection in MDM bootstrap package by authenticated team or global admin25Monitor
- CVE-2026-3438548 days apartFleet's Apple MDM profile delivery has second-order SQL injection that can compromise the database24Monitor
- CVE-2026-3438748 days apartFleet vulnerable to OS command injection via crafted software package metadata in uninstall scripts22Monitor
Not on record for this CVE: EPSS history · patch commit or PR link · researcher credit · public bounty program.
Technical details
Attack conditions
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it.
- No account or password is required.
- No user action is required.
- No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
If successful
- Confidentiality
- Integrity
- Availability
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- X
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-290 · Authentication Bypass by SpoofingCVSS vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
nvd-secondary
Attack context
MITRE CAPEC attack patterns and ATT&CK techniques for this weakness class (CWE). A starting point for detection rules and threat hunting.
Attack patterns (CAPEC)
- Exploitation of Trusted IdentifiersCAPEC-21likelihood: High · High
- Exploiting Trust in ClientCAPEC-22likelihood: High · High
- Creating a Rogue Certification Authority CertificateCAPEC-459likelihood: Medium · Very High
- Web Services API Signature Forgery Leveraging Hash Function Extension WeaknessCAPEC-461High
- Signature SpoofCAPEC-473
- Signature Spoofing by MisrepresentationCAPEC-476likelihood: Low · High
- Session Credential Falsification through PredictionCAPEC-59likelihood: High · High
- Reusing Session IDs (aka Session Replay)CAPEC-60likelihood: High · High
ATT&CK techniques
- Masquerading: Invalid Code SignatureT1036.001
- Access Token ManipulationT1134
- Access Token Manipulation:Token Impersonation/TheftT1134.001
- Steal Application Access TokenT1528
- Steal Web Session CookieT1539
- Use Alternate Authentication Material:Web Session CookieT1550.004
- Subvert Trust Controls: Code SigningT1553.002
- Adversary-in-the-MiddleT1557
Change log (1)
- 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.