VulnerabilityPublished 28 Apr 2024Updated 2 Aug 2024

CVE-2024-33883: ejs · Protection Mechanism Failure

Affects ejsSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.0 Medium : upgrade to 3.1.10 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 10:12 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.0Medium

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

EPSS: 0.6% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 49% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 3.1.10

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

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: None
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: 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: 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 28 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

Upgrade ejs to 3.1.10.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
npmejs`pkg:npm/ejs`Other threats	Affected <3.1.10	Fixed in 3.1.10

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-2024-33883, organizations should upgrade the ejs package to version 3.1.10 or later, where the pollution protection issue has been addressed. In addition to patching, it is advisable to restrict local access to systems running Node.js applications using ejs, minimizing the attack surface. Implement strict access controls and monitoring on servers to detect any unauthorized local activity. Developers should review template usage to avoid passing untrusted input that could exacerbate pollution risks. Employ runtime application self-protection (RASP) or web application firewalls (WAFs) that can detect anomalous behavior related to template rendering. Regularly audit dependencies and maintain an up-to-date inventory of packages to quickly identify and remediate vulnerable components. Finally, incorporate security testing focused on template injection and pollution scenarios during development and deployment cycles.

Description

The ejs (aka Embedded JavaScript templates) package before 3.1.10 for Node.js lacks certain pollution protection.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2024-33883 is on the availability of applications using vulnerable versions of the ejs package. An attacker with local access could exploit the pollution protection failure to cause denial of service, potentially leading to application crashes or degraded performance. While confidentiality and integrity remain intact, the disruption of service can affect user experience, operational continuity, and potentially lead to downtime in critical web applications. Organizations with Node.js applications that utilize ejs for templating are at risk, especially if these applications run in environments where local access by untrusted users is possible. The lack of known exploits in the wild reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate the need for remediation. The medium severity rating reflects the moderate risk posed by the vulnerability, balancing the limited attack vector with the potential for service disruption.

CWE-693Protection Mechanism Failure (opens in a new tab)
Pillar weaknessOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Tracing (opens in a new tab)
Directory Indexing (opens in a new tab)
Using Malicious Files (opens in a new tab)
Encryption Brute Forcing (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 28 Feb 2026, 03:05 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-693

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats