Security vulnerabilities often make headlines, but sometimes things are not what they seem. CVE-2024-1423 is a prime example: it was reported, tracked, and discussed, but ultimately rejected because it was flagged by mistake. This post tells the story behind CVE-2024-1423, shares technical details, provides reference links, and explains how accidental CVE submissions happen.

Reason: Accidental Request

- Original Reference: CVE List’s CVE-2024-1423 page

What Was CVE-2024-1423 Supposed To Be?

CVE-2024-1423 entered the system looking legit. As is common, products and vendors regularly submit bugs or vulnerabilities for tracking. At first, the entry for CVE-2024-1423 had little detail—just a general placeholder saying it would be updated later.

No public advisories or technical writeups were attached. No proof-of-concept code. No vendor “fix” announcements. This is not unusual for a new CVE, especially in fast-paced software industries.

Why Was It Rejected?

Shortly after submission, the CVE team realized that CVE-2024-1423 was created in error. This can happen for lots of reasons:

Here’s the actual rejection message shown on the MITRE CVE page

 REJECT   
DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER.  
Accidental Request.

What Actually Happened (And How This Happens)

CVE assignments begin when someone files a report (usually a security researcher, vendor, or project). They give a description, technical details, and sometimes links to a patch or issue tracker. These go to a CNA (CVE Numbering Authority), who does an initial review.

Human error: Someone meant to ask a question, but filed a CVE request instead.

- Scripted tools: Sometimes security bots or automated tools generate a request just because of suspicious code, not an actual exploit.
- Misunderstandings: Non-security bugs or low-severity issues get flagged even if they don’t pose real risk.

Example: Accidental CVE Request (Pseudo-code)

Here's a Python-style snippet showing how software might accidentally submit a Google Form or email a CVE authority:

# Pseudo-reporter script

bug_found = False  # Was there really a bug?
security_impact = False

if bug_found and security_impact:
    submit_cve_request()  # Valid request
else:
    # Oops! Should NOT submit, but...
    accidentally_submit_cve_request()  # Human or code error!

A small tick-box mistake or a copy-paste error can trigger a whole chain of unnecessary alerts.

No “how to fix”

If you ever see this CVE pop up on a vulnerability scanner, it is absolutely safe to ignore.

Why This Matters: Clean Data Helps Everyone

Having clear, accurate CVE records is important. If bogus or accidental requests like CVE-2024-1423 aren’t quickly flagged as “REJECTED,” then software vendors, security teams, and regular users could get confused, or waste time chasing ghosts.

Fun fact: You can see lots of rejected CVEs with similar simple messages around the web. They’re part of keeping security databases clean and usable.

- Official CVE-2024-1423 status on MITRE
- CVE Reference Search
- What Does “REJECTED” Mean? (CVE FAQ)

TL;DR: No Worries About CVE-2024-1423

If you Googled CVE-2024-1423 and found this post, breathe easy. It was a simple, honest mistake that was fixed quickly. There is no risk, no exploit, and nothing to patch.

And that's a good reminder: Not every bug tracker entry leads to a security panic. Sometimes the fix is as simple as “never mind!”


*Exclusive simple-words summary by GPTwriter, June 2024.*

Timeline

Published on: 02/27/2024 15:15:07 UTC