CVE-2024-34064VulnerabilityPublished 6 May 2024Updated 3 Nov 2025

CVE-2024-34064: pallets jinja · Cross-site Scripting

Affects pallets jinjaSource CVE Database V5

Mentioned vulnerabilities

CVE-2024-22195

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.4 Medium : upgrade to 3.1.4 when convenient.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.4Medium

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

EPSS: 0.9% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 61% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 3.1.4

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 6 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 2026-10-25.

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 3.1.4.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
PyPIjinja`pkg:pypi/jinja`Other threats	Affected <3.1.4	Fixed in 3.1.4

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

AI-suggested

1. Upgrade all Jinja installations to version 3.1.4 or later to ensure the vulnerability is patched. 2. Audit application code to identify any use of the xmlattr filter where user input is accepted as keys; refactor such code to avoid this practice entirely. 3. Implement strict input validation and sanitization on any user-supplied data that might be used in templating, especially keys for attribute generation. 4. Employ Content Security Policy (CSP) headers to reduce the impact of potential XSS by restricting script execution sources. 5. Conduct security code reviews and penetration testing focusing on template injection and XSS vectors. 6. Educate developers about the risks of accepting user input as keys in templating filters and encourage secure coding practices. 7. Monitor web application logs and user reports for signs of XSS exploitation attempts. 8. If immediate upgrade is not possible, consider temporary mitigations such as disabling features that accept user input as keys or applying custom filters to sanitize keys before rendering.

Description

Jinja is an extensible templating engine. The `xmlattr` filter in affected versions of Jinja accepts keys containing non-attribute characters. XML/HTML attributes cannot contain spaces, `/`, `>`, or `=`, as each would then be interpreted as starting a separate attribute. If an application accepts keys (as opposed to only values) as user input, and renders these in pages that other users see as well, an attacker could use this to inject other attributes and perform XSS. The fix for CVE-2024-22195 only addressed spaces but not other characters. Accepting keys as user input is now explicitly considered an unintended use case of the `xmlattr` filter, and code that does so without otherwise validating the input should be flagged as insecure, regardless of Jinja version. Accepting _values_ as user input continues to be safe. This vulnerability is fixed in 3.1.4.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a risk primarily to web applications using Jinja templating versions earlier than 3.1.4 that accept user input as keys in the xmlattr filter. Successful exploitation can lead to cross-site scripting attacks, compromising the confidentiality and integrity of user sessions, potentially leading to session hijacking, credential theft, or unauthorized actions performed on behalf of users. This can damage organizational reputation, lead to regulatory non-compliance (e.g., GDPR breaches if personal data is exposed), and cause operational disruptions. The impact is heightened in sectors with sensitive data or critical services, such as finance, healthcare, and government. However, the vulnerability requires specific unsafe coding practices (accepting keys as user input), so the overall risk depends on application design. The absence of known exploits reduces immediate threat but patching is advised to prevent future attacks.

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 4 Nov 2025, 00:01 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-79

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats