Security readout for executives and security teams
Plain-English summary
A failure in WSO2 account-locking can leave valid user accounts exposed to repeated password guessing when a configured secondary user store becomes unreachable. The attacker may continue trying passwords without the expected lockout. Successful guessing could disclose information accessible through the compromised account, but exploitation requires the specific multi-store failure condition.
Executive priority
Prioritize prompt assessment for internet-facing WSO2 identity or API environments using multiple user stores. This is not evidence of an emergency or active campaign, but compromised credentials could expose sensitive data. Escalate remediation if lockout fails during store outages or if suspicious authentication activity coincides with connectivity problems.
Technical view
When a secondary user store is inaccessible, lockout state is not maintained consistently across configured stores. Remote, unauthenticated attackers may repeatedly submit invalid credentials against users in still-accessible stores. CVSS 3.1 is 5.9: network-accessible, high complexity, no privileges or interaction, with potentially high confidentiality impact but no stated integrity or availability impact.
Likely exposure
Exposure requires WSO2 authentication with multiple configured user stores, account locking enabled, and at least one secondary store becoming inaccessible. The supplied product records are ambiguous: most list default status as unaffected, while the Carbon User Manager Kernel package has unknown default status. Confirm exact versions and dependency mappings with WSO2.
Exploitation context
The source bundle does not identify public exploitation, proof-of-concept availability, or observed attacks, and the CVE is not listed as KEV. Exploitation is condition-dependent because an attacker needs the secondary-store outage while targeting an account in an accessible store. Internet-facing authentication increases practical exposure.
Researcher notes
CWE-693 describes a protection-mechanism failure. The affected-data representation is insufficient for precise release conclusions: product entries default to unaffected, while org.wso2.carbon:org.wso2.carbon.user.core lists several versions with unknown default status. Treat vendor confirmation and dependency inspection as necessary before declaring exposure or remediation complete.
Mitigation direction
- Review the WSO2 advisory and obtain vendor-confirmed remediation for each deployed product and component version.
- Maintain reliable connectivity and monitoring for every configured secondary user store.
- Use supported MFA and authentication rate controls as compensating protections where available.
- Alert on sustained authentication failures, especially during user-store connectivity incidents.
Validation and detection
- Inventory WSO2 products, versions, and the org.wso2.carbon.user.core dependency version.
- Document all primary and secondary user stores and verify their current reachability.
- Confirm with WSO2 whether each exact deployment combination is affected.
- Safely test lockout behavior during simulated secondary-store failure in a controlled non-production environment.
- Review authentication and user-store availability logs for correlated failures and repeated password attempts.
Public sources used
Generated from the cited source records. This long-tail analysis has not been individually reviewed by a named human.
Conservative CVE-to-ATT&CK context
These mappings and lookup hints may be relevant to the vulnerability behavior, CWE, affected product, or exposure path. Glexia-inferred context is not an official MITRE, ATT&CK, CWE, or CVE Program mapping.
ATT&CK lookup starting points
Use these exact CWE pages and searches to review the Glexia ATT&CK library from this CVE's weakness and description context.
CWE-693: Exact CWE lookup
Use the exact CWE identifier as the starting point before reviewing related ATT&CK behavior. Open the exact CWE lookup page first, then review the ATT&CK searches from that MITRE weakness context. This is a Glexia lookup hint, not an official ATT&CK mapping.
Open ATT&CK lookupCredential and access behavior lookup
The CVE wording references authentication or credential exposure, so valid-account and credential-access review may help. This is a Glexia inferred lookup path, not an official MITRE, ATT&CK, or CVE Program mapping.
Open ATT&CK lookupCVE-2024-6832 mapping review
Open the CVE-to-ATT&CK bridge for reviewed, inferred, or future official mappings tied to this CVE.
Open ATT&CK lookup- Severity
- Medium
- CVSS
- 5.9 (3.1)
- Known Exploited
- No
- Published
Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
CNA and ADP enrichment extracted from CVE v5
These fields come from the CVE record and ADP containers, not from Glexia's Take. They preserve time-varying source decisions such as CISA SSVC, KEV status, CVSS metrics, and provider references.
SSVC decision data
CVSS vector scores
1 official scoreWe collect every scored CVSS vector available in the official CNA and ADP containers. When more than one version is present, the table keeps the source vectors side by side instead of collapsing them into the highest score.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N2.23.6WSO2Vulnerability scoring details
Base CVSS 3.1 score
5.9MediumVector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
Vulnerability timeline
Timeline events are normalized from CVE metadata, CNA source timelines, ADP timelines, and KEV metadata when present.
- CVE reservedCVE Program
The CVE ID was reserved by the assigning CNA.
- CVE publishedCVE Program
The CVE record was published.
- CVE updatedCVE Program
The CVE record metadata indicates this as the latest update time.
ADP provider summaries
Source materials
- CVE List V5 sourceCVE List V5
- https://security.docs.wso2.com/en/latest/security-announcements/security-advisories/2026/WSO2-2024-3352/CVE reference, WSO2 · vendor-advisory
Products and packages named in the record
CWE details
CWE links open Glexia weakness intelligence pages with official CWE context, developer remediation guidance, and related CVE mappings.
Protection Mechanism Failure
Protection Mechanism Failure represents a recurring weakness pattern that can create exploitable paths when design, validation, or implementation controls are missing.