VulnerabilityPublished 17 Jun 2024Updated 2 Aug 2024

CVE-2024-36581: badger-database · Code Injection

Affects badger-databaseSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.6 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.6High

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

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 43% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
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: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
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 17 Jun 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
npmabw/badger-database`pkg:npm/abw/badger-database`Other threats	Affected =1.2.1	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

Given the absence of official patches, organizations should immediately audit their use of the abw badger-database library and identify all affected instances. Temporary mitigations include isolating or sandboxing applications using this library to limit potential damage from exploitation. Implement strict input validation and sanitization to reduce the risk of prototype pollution vectors reaching the vulnerable code. Employ runtime application self-protection (RASP) or Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) with custom rules to detect and block suspicious payloads targeting prototype pollution. Monitor logs and network traffic for unusual activity indicative of exploitation attempts. Engage with the library maintainers to track patch releases and apply updates promptly once available. Consider replacing or refactoring the use of the vulnerable library with alternative, secure database solutions if feasible. Conduct thorough security testing, including fuzzing and static analysis, to detect similar vulnerabilities in dependent code. Educate development teams about prototype pollution risks and secure coding practices to prevent future issues.

Description

A Prototype Pollution issue in abw badger-database 1.2.1 allows an attacker to execute arbitrary code via dist/badger-database.esm.

Impact

The impact of CVE-2024-36581 is significant for organizations using the abw badger-database library in their software stacks. Successful exploitation can lead to remote code execution, compromising the confidentiality of sensitive data stored or processed by the application. Integrity is also at risk, as attackers can manipulate application logic or data structures. Availability may be degraded if attackers disrupt normal operations or cause crashes. Since the attack requires only low privileges and no user interaction, it can be automated and scaled, increasing the risk of widespread exploitation once public exploits emerge. Organizations in sectors handling sensitive or regulated data, such as finance, healthcare, and critical infrastructure, face heightened risks. The absence of patches means that vulnerable systems remain exposed, potentially allowing attackers to establish persistent footholds or move laterally within networks. The vulnerability could also undermine trust in affected applications and lead to regulatory or compliance consequences if exploited.

CWE-94Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumCWE Top 25 (2025): #10OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment.
Architecture and Design · Refactoring
Refactor your program so that you do not have to dynamically generate code.
Architecture and Design
Run your code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which code can be executed by your product.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Server Side Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Scripting Prevention (opens in a new tab)
DOM based XSS Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V5.2.8 (opens in a new tab)
V5.2.5 (opens in a new tab)
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Leverage Executable Code in Non-Executable Files (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating User-Controlled Variables (opens in a new tab)
Code Injection (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

gist.github.com/mestrtee/f6b2ed1b3b4bc0df994c7455fc6110bd (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 26 Feb 2026, 05:05 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-94

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats