CVE-2024-23685 is a medium-severity (CVSS 5.3) Hard-coded Credentials vulnerability in org.folio:mod-remote-storage. A fix is available for org.folio:mod-remote-storage — see the affected versions and patch details below.
FOLIO mod-remote-storage Hard Coded Credentials
Exploitation Status
No confirmed exploitation observed yet
- CISA assesses this as automatable — exploitation doesn’t require manual, per-target effort, which raises the odds of mass scanning and opportunistic attacks.
- CISA’s own triage has not observed active exploitation or public proof-of-concept code for this CVE as of its last assessment.
Exploitation and automatability from CISA’s SSVC triage for CVE-2024-23685.
EPSS Exploitation Probability
EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) is a daily probability model maintained by FIRST.org. It estimates the likelihood a CVE will be exploited in production environments within the next 30 days, derived from real-world threat intelligence signals.
How urgent is this, really
CVE-2024-23685 plotted by exploitation likelihood (EPSS) against impact (CVSS). The shaded corner — EPSS 50%+ and CVSS 7.0+ — is where this CVE doesn't sit, though severity or exploitability alone can still warrant action.
Where this sits among everything scored
Of 377,333 CVEs with a current EPSS score, this one falls in the < 10% band (highlighted). Real counts from FIRST.org, not a sample — log-scaled since the landscape is heavily right-skewed.
Real-World Exposure
org.folio:mod-remote-storage☕org.folio:mod-remote-storageReal-time download stats are indexed for npm and PyPI packages. This vulnerability affects Maven packages — download data is not available via public APIs for these ecosystems.
Description
Impact
The module creates a system user that is used to perform internal module-to-module operations. Credentials for this user are hard-coded in the source code. This makes it trivial to authenticate as this user, allowing unauthorized read access to these mod-inventory-storage records: instances, holdings, items, contributor-types, identifier-types. This includes records marked as suppressed from discovery.
Patches
Upgrade mod-remote-storage to >=2.0.3, or a 1.7.x version >=1.7.1.
Workarounds
No known workarounds.
References
https://wiki.folio.org/x/hbMMBw - FOLIO Security Advisory with Upgrade Instructions https://github.com/folio-org/mod-remote-storage/commit/57df495f76e9aa5be9ce7ce3a65f89b6dbcbc13b - Fix
Affected Packages
| Ecosystem | Package | Vulnerable range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| ☕Maven | org.folio:mod-remote-storage | ≥ 2.0.0&&< 2.0.3 | 2.0.3org.folio:mod-remote-storage:2.0.3 |
| ☕Maven | org.folio:mod-remote-storage | all versions | 1.7.2org.folio:mod-remote-storage:1.7.2 |
Detection & mitigation playbook
Open-source dependencyDetect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for org.folio:mod-remote-storage, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.
Fix
Update org.folio:mod-remote-storage to 2.0.3 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms CVE-2024-23685 is resolved across your whole dependency graph.
Workarounds
If you can't upgrade right away: gate or disable the affected feature, validate untrusted input at the boundary, and avoid passing attacker-controlled data into the vulnerable path. O3's runtime protection blocks exploitation in production as an interim safeguard until the upgrade lands.
How O3 protects you
O3 Security's impact-aware SCA analyses which vulnerable code paths your application actually calls, so a match like CVE-2024-23685 can be triaged on real exposure rather than presence alone.
Tailored to CVE-2024-23685. Runtime protection reduces exposure until a permanent patch is applied and verified — it complements patching, it doesn't replace it.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is CVE-2024-23685 in your dependencies?
O3 Security finds CVE-2024-23685 across Maven dependencies, including transitive ones, and its impact-aware SCA ranks findings by whether your code actually calls the vulnerable path.