VulnerabilityPublished 26 Apr 2024Updated 2 Aug 2024

CVE-2024-33255: Jerryscript · Reachable Assertion

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.2 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.2Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 19% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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: 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: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 26 Apr 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 26 Oct 2026.

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 or the CVSS exploit maturity 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

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2024-33255, organizations should first identify all systems and devices running affected versions of Jerryscript. Since no official patches are currently linked, monitoring the Jerryscript project and related security advisories for updates or fixes is critical. In the interim, limit local access to affected devices by enforcing strict physical security controls and network segmentation to reduce the attack surface. Employ runtime monitoring and watchdog mechanisms to detect and recover from crashes promptly, minimizing downtime. Review and harden input validation and string handling routines if custom modifications of Jerryscript are used. Consider deploying fallback or redundancy mechanisms in critical systems to maintain availability in case of crashes. Additionally, conduct thorough testing of Jerryscript integrations to detect potential assertion failures under various conditions. Once patches become available, prioritize timely application to eliminate the vulnerability. Finally, maintain an incident response plan to address potential denial of service events caused by this issue.

Description

Jerryscript commit cefd391 was discovered to contain an Assertion Failure via ECMA_STRING_IS_REF_EQUALS_TO_ONE (string_p) in ecma_free_string_list.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2024-33255 is denial of service through application or device crashes caused by assertion failure. For organizations deploying Jerryscript in embedded systems or IoT devices, this could lead to temporary unavailability of critical services or devices, potentially disrupting operations. Although the vulnerability does not compromise data confidentiality or integrity, the loss of availability can affect system reliability and user trust. In industrial, consumer, or critical infrastructure environments where Jerryscript is embedded, repeated crashes could lead to operational downtime, increased maintenance costs, and potential safety risks if devices fail unexpectedly. Since exploitation requires local access, the risk is higher in environments where attackers can gain physical or local network access. The absence of known exploits reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate the threat, especially as attackers may develop exploits once the vulnerability details are public. Organizations relying on Jerryscript should consider the impact on availability and plan accordingly to minimize disruption.

CWE-617Reachable Assertion (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product contains an assert() or similar statement that can be triggered by an attacker, which leads to an application exit or other behavior that is more severe than necessary.
Implementation
Make sensitive open/close operation non reachable by directly user-controlled data (e.g. open/close resources)
Implementation · Input Validation
Perform input validation on user data.
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

github.com/jerryscript-project/jerryscript/issues/5135 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 28 Feb 2026, 02:47 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-617

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats