CVE-2024-22195VulnerabilityPublished 11 Jan 2024Updated 3 Nov 2025

CVE-2024-22195: pallets jinja · Cross-site Scripting

Affects pallets jinjaSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.4 Medium : upgrade to 3.1.3 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.4Medium

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.8% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 59% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 3.1.3

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: Low
Availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
Integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 11 Jan 2024
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 2026-10-26.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Upgrade pallets jinja to 3.1.3.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
PyPIjinja`pkg:pypi/jinja`Other threats	Affected <3.1.3	Fixed in 3.1.3

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

The primary mitigation is to upgrade all affected Jinja instances to version 3.1.3 or later, where this vulnerability has been addressed. Organizations should audit their codebases and dependencies to identify usage of the `xmlattr` filter and review how input is passed to it. Avoid passing untrusted or user-supplied data directly to this filter without proper sanitization. Implement strict input validation and sanitization routines for any data rendered in templates, especially when using dynamic attribute generation. Employ Content Security Policy (CSP) headers to restrict the execution of unauthorized scripts and reduce the impact of potential XSS attacks. Additionally, security teams should conduct code reviews and penetration testing focused on template injection and XSS vectors. Monitoring web application logs for unusual or suspicious input patterns can help detect attempted exploitation. Finally, educate developers about secure template usage and the risks of improper input handling in templating engines.

Description

Jinja is an extensible templating engine. Special placeholders in the template allow writing code similar to Python syntax. It is possible to inject arbitrary HTML attributes into the rendered HTML template, potentially leading to Cross-Site Scripting (XSS). The Jinja `xmlattr` filter can be abused to inject arbitrary HTML attribute keys and values, bypassing the auto escaping mechanism and potentially leading to XSS. It may also be possible to bypass attribute validation checks if they are blacklist-based.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability can lead to exploitation of web applications that use vulnerable Jinja versions, potentially resulting in Cross-Site Scripting attacks. Such attacks can compromise user data confidentiality by stealing cookies, session tokens, or other sensitive information. Integrity of web content can also be affected by unauthorized script execution, leading to phishing or defacement. Although availability impact is minimal, the reputational damage and regulatory consequences under GDPR for data breaches involving personal data could be significant. Organizations in sectors with high web application usage, such as finance, e-commerce, healthcare, and government services, are particularly at risk. The medium severity rating indicates that while exploitation is feasible, the impact is somewhat limited compared to more severe vulnerabilities. However, the ease of exploitation (no authentication required) and the widespread use of Jinja in Python web frameworks increase the risk profile. Failure to patch could expose European users to targeted attacks, especially in environments where user interaction with web applications is frequent.

CWE-79Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #1OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes user-controllable input before it is placed in output that is used as a web page that is served to other users.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Implementation · Architecture and Design
Understand the context in which your data will be used and the encoding that will be expected. This is especially important when transmitting data between different components, or when generating outputs that can contain multiple encodings at the same time, such as web pages or multi-part mail messages.
Architecture and Design · Implementation · Attack Surface Reduction
Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter your software: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide…
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Cross Site Scripting Prevention (opens in a new tab)
DOM based XSS Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V5.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
XSS Using MIME Type Mismatch (opens in a new tab)
DOM-Based XSS (opens in a new tab)
Reflected XSS (opens in a new tab)
Stored XSS (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 3 Nov 2025, 23:53 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-79

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats