Sentry is an error tracking and performance monitoring platform. Version 24.11.0, and only version 24.11.0, is vulnerable to a scenario where a specific error message generated by the Sentry platform could include a plaintext Client ID and Client Secret for an application integration. The Client ID and Client Secret would not be displayed in the UI, but would be returned in the underlying HTTP response to the end user. This could occur under the following conditions: An app installation made use of a Search UI component with the async flag set to true (default: true); auser types types into the Search Component which creates a request to the third-party for search or query results; and that third-party response may then fail validation and Sentry would return the select-requester.invalid-response error code along with a serialized version of a Sentry application containing the integration Client Secret. Should this error be found, it's reasonable to assume the potential exposure of an integration Client Secret. However, an ID and Secret pair alone does not provide direct access to any data. For that secret to be abused an attacker would also need to obtain a valid API token for a Sentry application.
Sentry SaaS users do not need to take any action. For Sentry SaaS users, only a single application integration was impacted and the owner has rotated their Client Secret. No abuse of the leaked Client Secret has occurred.
As of time of publication, a fix is available for users of Sentry self-hosted in pull request 81038. Sentry self-hosted does not ship with any application integrations. This could only impact self-hosted users that maintain their own integrations. In that case, search for a select-requester.invalid-response event. Please note that this error was also shared with another event unrelated to this advisory so Sentry self-hosted users will also need to review the parameters logged for each named event. Sentry self-hosted users may review select_requester.py for the instances where these errors can be generated. With the security fix this is no longer a shared event type. Sentry self-hosted users may not install version 24.11.0 and instead wait for the next release. Self-hosted instance that are already running the affected version may consider downgrading to to 24.10.0.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (5.3): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 5.3 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 5.3 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.6% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-31). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it