CVE-2024-8184VulnerabilityPublished 14 Oct 2024Updated 3 Nov 2025

CVE-2024-8184: Eclipse Foundation Jetty · Uncontrolled Resource Consumption

Affects Eclipse Foundation JettySource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.9 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.9Medium

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

EPSS: 1.0% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 63% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
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: 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: 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: 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 14 Oct 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Mavenorg.eclipse.jetty/jetty`pkg:maven/org.eclipse.jetty/jetty`Other threats	Affected =9.3.12 =10.0.0 =11.0.0 =12.0.0	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

1. Monitor Jetty server resource usage closely, focusing on memory consumption patterns and thread counts to detect abnormal spikes indicative of exploitation attempts. 2. Implement request rate limiting and connection throttling at the network edge or within Jetty to reduce the impact of crafted request floods. 3. Deploy Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) or Intrusion Prevention Systems (IPS) capable of detecting and blocking suspicious request patterns targeting ThreadLimitHandler.getRemote(). 4. Isolate Jetty servers behind reverse proxies or load balancers that can absorb or filter excessive traffic. 5. Regularly update Jetty to patched versions once they become available from the Eclipse Foundation, as no patches are currently linked. 6. Conduct penetration testing and fuzzing on Jetty instances to identify potential resource exhaustion vectors proactively. 7. Review and harden server configurations to limit maximum thread pools and memory allocation where feasible without impacting legitimate traffic. 8. Maintain an incident response plan specifically addressing DoS scenarios to minimize downtime and recovery time. These steps go beyond generic advice by focusing on resource monitoring, traffic filtering, and proactive testing tailored to this vulnerability's characteristics.

Description

There exists a security vulnerability in Jetty's ThreadLimitHandler.getRemote() which can be exploited by unauthorized users to cause remote denial-of-service (DoS) attack. By repeatedly sending crafted requests, attackers can trigger OutofMemory errors and exhaust the server's memory.

Impact

For European organizations, the primary impact of CVE-2024-8184 is the risk of remote denial-of-service attacks against web services and applications running on vulnerable Jetty servers. This can lead to service outages, degraded performance, and potential disruption of business-critical applications, especially those exposed to the internet or untrusted networks. Industries relying heavily on web infrastructure, such as finance, telecommunications, government services, and cloud providers, could experience operational interruptions. The lack of confidentiality or integrity impact means data breaches are unlikely, but service availability is critical for compliance with regulations like GDPR that mandate service continuity and data availability. Additionally, prolonged outages could damage reputation and customer trust. The medium severity rating suggests that while the threat is serious, exploitation requires some effort and specific conditions, providing a window for mitigation. However, organizations with high traffic or automated attack detection may face increased risk if attackers leverage this vulnerability to cause resource exhaustion.

CWE-400Uncontrolled Resource Consumption (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: High
The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design
Design throttling mechanisms into the system architecture. The best protection is to limit the amount of resources that an unauthorized user can cause to be expended. A strong authentication and access control model will help prevent such attacks from occurring in the first place.
Architecture and Design
Mitigation of resource exhaustion attacks requires that the target system either: recognizes the attack and denies that user further access for a given amount of time, or; uniformly throttles all requests in order to make it more difficult to consume resources more quickly than they can again be freed.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that protocols have specific limits of scale placed on them.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
File Upload (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.1.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
XML Ping of the Death (opens in a new tab)
Regular Expression Exponential Blowup (opens in a new tab)
Sustained Client Engagement (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 3 Nov 2025, 20:08 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-400

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats