CVE Intelligence
Skip to main content
MEDIUM

CVE-2024-50347

CVE-2024-50347 — Laravel Reverb has Missing API Signature Verification

Laravel Reverb provides a real-time WebSocket communication backend for Laravel applications. Prior to 1.4.0, there is an issue where verification signatures for requests sent to Reverb's Pusher-compatible API were not being verified. This API is used in scenarios such as broadcasting a message from a backend service or for obtaining statistical information (such as number of connections) about a given channel. This issue only affects the Pusher-compatible API endpoints and not the WebSocket connections themselves. In order to exploit this vulnerability, the application ID which, should never be exposed, would need to be known by an attacker. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.4.0.

Published Updated Sources: cvelistV5, GitHub_M

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the scoring sources call it.

Exploitation

Unreported

no source claims exploitation

EPSS

0%

chance of exploitation in 30 days

Affects

laravel

reverb

CVSS base

6.3

MEDIUM

CISA SSVC assessment

Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses · SSVC 2.0.3. A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.

CISA

Exploitation

None

none · proof-of-concept · active

Automatable

No

can an attacker script all four kill-chain steps

Technical impact

Partial

partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Affected scope

The catalog records vendors and products as separate lists, not pairs, so which product belongs to which vendor is not something this page can say.

Vendors (1)

laravel

Products (1)

reverb

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactSource
6.3CVSS 4.0MEDIUM——cvelistV5

Weakness & attack patterns

  • CWE-347

References

4 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

  • laravelevery CVE for this vendor
  • CWE-347other pages naming this weakness

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

  • No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
  • No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
  • No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.