CVE-2024-34447
Is CVE-2024-34447 real, exploitable, or a false positive? Here's the community verdict.
signals
public sources
High CVSS base score, but low real-world exploitation probability (EPSS). Likely less urgent than the score implies.
scanner noise
anonymous, aggregated from real reports · via Denoizr| Scanner | Flagged in | Turned out noise |
|---|---|---|
| Mend | 1 scan | 0% |
How often this CVE was flagged by each scanner and how much turned out to be noise (false positives), aggregated anonymously from de-noised reports. Higher noise means the alert is more often not a real risk — verify your exposure.
baseline read
auto · not a community verdict
Real, but low real-world risk
A genuine vulnerability on paper, but EPSS shows little real-world exploitation — the base score may overstate urgency. This is not the same as a false positive.
Based on CVSS · FIRST EPSS
Confirm or dispute →CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
An issue was discovered in the Bouncy Castle Crypto Package For Java before BC TLS Java 1.0.19 (ships with BC Java 1.78, BC Java (LTS) 2.73.6) and before BC FIPS TLS Java 1.0.19. When endpoint identification is enabled in the BCJSSE and an SSL socket is created without an explicit hostname (as happens with HttpsURLConnection), hostname verification could be performed against a DNS-resolved IP address in some situations, opening up a possibility of DNS poisoning.
References
Published
Embed this verdict
[](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2024-34447)<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2024-34447"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2024-34447/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2024-34447"></a>Live badge that updates automatically as the community verdict changes.
Community ground truth
Be the first practitioner to weigh in
So far this is only TruePositive's editorial baseline from public sources. Add your real-world verdict below — it becomes the signal the next person triaging this relies on.
🥇 The first 50 practitioners to contribute earn a Founding Contributor badge.
In your experience, is this finding real and exploitable?
awaiting field verdictsNo account needed. Anonymous verdicts post as an unverified signal. Log in to make yours verified and earn reputation.
Field notes & remediation
Verdicts are the quick signal. Notes are the evidence and fixes behind them.
No notes yet. Be the first to share what you saw, or a fix that worked.
Add a field note or remediationoptional
Related CVEs
Same weakness: CWE-297.
- CVE-2026-43869HIGH 7.3Real · low riskEPSS 1%
Improper Validation of Certificate with Host Mismatch vulnerability in Apache Thrift. This issue affects Apache Thrift: before 0.23.0. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 0.23.0, which fixes the issue.
- CVE-2026-48145HIGH 7.5Real · low riskEPSS 0%
Improper Validation of Certificate with Host Mismatch vulnerability in Apache Thrift C++ bindings. This issue affects Apache Thrift: before 0.24.0. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 0.24.0, which fixes the issue.
- CVE-2026-48144CRIT 9.1Real · low riskEPSS 0%
Improper Validation of Certificate with Host Mismatch vulnerability in Apache Thrift c_glib bindings. This issue affects Apache Thrift: before 0.24.0. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 0.24.0, which fixes the issue.
- CVE-2026-66053MED 5.9EPSS 0%
Improper Validation of Certificate with Host Mismatch vulnerability in Apache Thrift Python bindings. This issue affects Apache Thrift: before 0.24.0. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 0.24.0, which fixes the issue. This replaces CVE-2026-41603
- CVE-2026-35563HIGH 8.5Real · low riskEPSS 0%
It was identified that the LDAP client implementation in version 2.1.7 does not verify if the server certificate matches the intended LDAP hostname. While the underlying code validates the certificate chain against a trusted authority, the absence of endpoint identification allows a valid certificate issued for an entirely unrelated host to be improperly accepted. This oversight leaves the connection highly vulnerable to server impersonation and complete connection compromise. The root cause of this vulnerability lies in the incomplete TLS server identity verification within the LDAP client implementation. The attacker requires MITM capability on the network to exploit this vulnerability. This attacker must be able to present a certificate trusted by the client's configured trust store. The hostname verification has been enforced in the new version of the LDAP API
- CVE-2026-44393HIGH 7.4Real · low riskEPSS 0%
An issue was discovered in OpenStack oslo.messaging 1.0.0 through 17.3.0. The oslo.messaging RabbitMQ driver does not perform TLS hostname verification when connecting to the message broker. When ssl_ca_file is configured, the driver enables certificate chain validation but does not pass the expected broker hostname into the underlying TLS stack. Any certificate signed by the deployment CA is accepted regardless of hostname, allowing an attacker who can intercept control-plane traffic to impersonate the RabbitMQ broker and perform a man-in-the-middle attack on RPC and notification traffic. All OpenStack services using oslo.messaging with RabbitMQ over TLS are affected.