`CVE-2024-37359`

Severity	8.6 High CVSS 3.1
Weakness	Server-side request forgery (CWE-918)
Published	19 Feb 2025
Updated	17 Jun 2026

Description

The web server receives a URL or similar request from an upstream component and retrieves the contents of this URL, but it does not sufficiently ensure that the request is being sent to the expected destination. (CWE-918) Hitachi Vantara Pentaho Business Analytics Server versions before 10.2.0.0 and 9.3.0.9, including 8.3.x, do not validate the Host header of incoming HTTP/HTTPS requests. By providing URLs to unexpected hosts or ports, attackers can make it appear that the server is sending the request, possibly bypassing access controls such as firewalls that prevent the attackers from accessing the URLs directly. The server can be used as a proxy to conduct port scanning of hosts in internal networks, use other URLs such as that can access documents on the system (using file://), or use other protocols such as gopher:// or tftp://, which may provide greater control over the contents of requests.

Exploitation status

No public exploit

No exploit has been reported in the sources we check. Published a year ago.

CISA KEV not listed
VulnCheck KEV not listed
CISA Vulnrichment exploitation: none
Indexed PoC none indexed
EPSS 0.52% chance in 30 days

Waratek protection

No exploit published

Within Waratek scope. In the sources we check, nobody has published exploit code for this CVE or reported it being exploited.

VRT has not found a public code change for this CVE yet.

Protection none
Action not pursued
Review automated Upstream data
Record active

Decided by	Nothing to build a rule from yet: no published exploit, no CISA record of exploitation and no source-level change to read
Finding	This CVE affects a known product, but nothing published names a fix and nothing published shows an exploit. That is a statement about the evidence, not about the defect — it does not mean the vulnerability is unimportant or unreachable, only that neither of the two things VRT can act on exists.

Decided by

Nothing to build a rule from yet: no published exploit, no CISA record of exploitation and no source-level change to read

Finding

This CVE affects a known product, but nothing published names a fix and nothing published shows an exploit. That is a statement about the evidence, not about the defect — it does not mean the vulnerability is unimportant or unreachable, only that neither of the two things VRT can act on exists.

References

URL	Tags
https://support.pentaho.com/hc/en-us/articles/34296789835917--Resolved-Hitachi-Vantara-Pentaho-Business-Analytics-Server-Server-Side-Request-Forgery-Versions-before-10-2-0-0-and-9-3-0-9-including-8-3-x-Impacted-CVE-2024-37359

URL

Timeline

Published	2025-02-19	By the CVE Program.
NVD record modified	2026-06-17	NVD's own last-modified date for this record.

Published

2025-02-19

By the CVE Program.

NVD record modified

2026-06-17

NVD's own last-modified date for this record.

How VRT decided (18 of 24 rules ran)

18 of 24 rules ran. The rest didn't run because an earlier rule had already settled the CVE.

# Rule Outcome Status Detail

identity: Does this identifier describe a vulnerability at all? the first rule that matches decides

1 rejected no match CVE Program withdrawal of this identifier

scope: Is it a vulnerability Waratek protects? the first rule that matches decides

2 armr-patch-file no match An ARMR patch file on disk for this CVE

3 armr-secure-rule-file no match An ARMR security-rule template on disk for this CVE

4 manual-classification no match A researcher's recorded decision for this specific CVE

5 manual classification no match Manual classification of this CVE in the legacy dataset

6 non-java-upstream no match A root cause in non-Java code: an OS kernel, a C library, or a bundled runtime

7 oracle-component no match The defect being in a component of a tracked product the agent does not reach: JavaFX, the Java SE installer, the JInitiator browser plug-in, the native WebLogic proxy plug-in, or a native part of Oracle Application Server or Collaboration Suite (HTTP Server, Web Cache, Internet Directory, mail and calendar servers). Oracle gives these no CPE of their own and names them only in the description.

8 java-client-side no match Oracle's own risk-matrix note saying the CVE is reached only through untrusted code in the Java sandbox (applets, Web Start) or only through a client installation of Java, so a server running its own trusted code is not exposed

9 osv-maven no match An OSV.dev record of this CVE affecting a package published to Maven Central. When every such package is one business applications do not use (Minecraft mods and launchers, Fastjson) and no tracked product is named by CPE, it settles the CVE as Outside Waratek scope instead

10 cna-maven-package matched In scope CNA declares the affected component is a Maven artifact

11 known-cpe-product not reached An NVD CPE naming a product ARMR tracks

12 cna-cpe-product not reached A CPE the CNA published naming a tracked product. Oracle publishes these on advisory day, months before NVD.

13 oracle-advisory-family not reached A tracked product family named in Oracle's own risk matrix. CPE cannot carry a suite name, only a module.

14 cna-named-product not reached A tracked product named in words by the CVE's own CNA, on a record with no CPE yet. Apache and Eclipse publish these on advisory day, before NVD adds CPE data.

15 non-deployable-product not reached The only affected product being a sealed appliance image, where Java runs but no -javaagent can be attached

16 unmatched-product not reached No tracked product matched above, and none present at all

disposition: What do we do about one that is? every rule runs

17 patch-hint no match A reference pointing at the upstream fix: a commit, a PR, a Red Hat bug

18 open-source-maven no match The affected package being open source on Maven, so the fix can be read

19 poc-derivable no match An indexed exploit clearing the evidence bar to reverse-engineer, where there is no source to read

20 no-exploit decided it matched No exploit published No public exploits or POCs found in Exploit-DB, Nuclei templates, Metasploit modules, or GitHub POC repositories, and CISA's Vulnrichment assessment records no demonstrated exploit. No upstream fix reference or open-source Maven package was found either, so there is nothing to act on from either direction.

21 secure-rule-match no match A vulnerability class already blocked by an ARMR security rule

22 exploited-no-fix-or-poc skipped Somebody exploiting this CVE (a CISA or VulnCheck KEV listing, or a CISA verdict of active exploitation), with no fix, source code or PoC to build a rule from

23 below-action-threshold skipped Medium or Low severity, no CISA or VulnCheck KEV listing, no PoC clearing the evidence bar, no CISA verdict, no Oracle advisory

24 no-exploit-published skipped Exploit code for this candidate, published in a reviewed catalogue or a GitHub repository with 5 or more stars, or in use per CISA or VulnCheck; not only a CISA verdict, a forecast, or nothing at all

NVD ↗ · CVE.org ↗