CVE-2024-27281VulnerabilityPublished 8 May 2024Updated 4 Nov 2025

CVE-2024-27281: rdoc · n/a

Affects rdocSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.5 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.5Medium

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

EPSS: 1.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 75% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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

Attack Vector: Local: The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Either: the attacker exploits the vulnerability by accessing the target system locally (e.g., keyboard, console), or remotely (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., tricking a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
Attack Complexity: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
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: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 8 May 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
RubyGemsrdoc`pkg:gem/rdoc`Other threats	Affected >=6.3.3 <=6.6.2	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2024-27281, European organizations should: 1) Upgrade RDoc to the fixed versions corresponding to their Ruby version (6.6.3.1 for Ruby 3.3.0, 6.3.4.1 for Ruby 3.0, 6.4.1.1 for Ruby 3.1, and 6.5.1.1 for Ruby 3.2) as soon as possible. 2) Restrict write permissions on .rdoc_options and documentation cache files to trusted users only, preventing untrusted users from injecting malicious YAML content. 3) Implement strict access controls and monitoring on build servers, CI/CD pipelines, and shared development environments to detect and prevent unauthorized file modifications. 4) Use containerization or sandboxing for documentation generation processes to limit the impact of potential code execution. 5) Audit existing YAML parsing configurations and consider applying safe YAML loading practices that restrict deserialization to known safe classes. 6) Educate developers and DevOps teams about the risks of deserializing untrusted YAML data and enforce secure coding practices. 7) Monitor security advisories for any emerging exploits or additional patches related to this vulnerability.

Description

An issue was discovered in RDoc 6.3.3 through 6.6.2, as distributed in Ruby 3.x through 3.3.0. When parsing .rdoc_options (used for configuration in RDoc) as a YAML file, object injection and resultant remote code execution are possible because there are no restrictions on the classes that can be restored. (When loading the documentation cache, object injection and resultant remote code execution are also possible if there were a crafted cache.) The main fixed version is 6.6.3.1. For Ruby 3.0 users, a fixed version is rdoc 6.3.4.1. For Ruby 3.1 users, a fixed version is rdoc 6.4.1.1. For Ruby 3.2 users, a fixed version is rdoc 6.5.1.1.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2024-27281 depends on the extent of Ruby and RDoc usage in their software development and deployment environments. Organizations that use Ruby 3.x versions with affected RDoc versions in development, testing, or production could face risks of remote code execution if an attacker can supply malicious .rdoc_options or documentation cache files. This could lead to unauthorized code execution, potentially compromising confidentiality, integrity, and availability of systems. The vulnerability is particularly concerning in multi-user environments, shared build servers, or CI/CD pipelines where untrusted users might inject malicious YAML content. Although exploitation requires local access and user interaction, the ability to execute arbitrary code remotely can facilitate lateral movement or privilege escalation within an organization’s network. European companies in sectors with heavy software development activities, such as finance, telecommunications, and technology, may face higher risks. The medium severity rating suggests a moderate but not critical threat, emphasizing the need for timely patching to prevent exploitation.

CWE-502Deserialization of Untrusted Data (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumCWE Top 25 (2025): #15OWASP Top 10 A08:2025: Software or Data Integrity Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product deserializes untrusted data without sufficiently ensuring that the resulting data will be valid.
Architecture and Design · Implementation
If available, use the signing/sealing features of the programming language to assure that deserialized data has not been tainted. For example, a hash-based message authentication code (HMAC) could be used to ensure that data has not been modified.
Implementation
When deserializing data, populate a new object rather than just deserializing. The result is that the data flows through safe input validation and that the functions are safe.
Implementation
Explicitly define a final object() to prevent deserialization.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
XML External Entity Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Software Supply Chain Security (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.5.2 (opens in a new tab)
V5.5.3 (opens in a new tab)
V5.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Object Injection (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 4 Nov 2025, 17:05 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-502

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats