CVE-2024-21131VulnerabilityPublished 17 Jul 2024Updated 11 Oct 2026

SUSE · security update for java-21-openjdk

Affects SUSESource GCVE Database

Mentioned vulnerabilities

Not known to be exploited : upgrade to 10 or 9.9 soon.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

Severity

High

Rated by Threat Radar · No CVSS score from NVD or the CNA

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.
Patch: Available – fixed in 10, 9.9

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 17 Jul 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 redhat/java-21-openjdk to 10 or 9.9.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Red Hatredhat/java-21-openjdk`pkg:rpm/redhat/java-21-openjdk`Other threats	Affected <9.9 <10	Fixed in 9.9 10

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

AI-suggested

A security update for java-21-openjdk is available from Red Hat and should be applied to affected systems. The vendor advisory provides detailed instructions for updating the packages on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 and 9. Users should follow the official guidance at https://access.redhat.com/articles/11258 to remediate these vulnerabilities. Since patches are available, applying them is the recommended mitigation.

Description

Multiple security vulnerabilities have been identified and fixed in the java-21-openjdk packages, which provide the OpenJDK 21 Java Runtime Environment and Software Development Kit. The issues include array index overflows, potential UTF8 size overflow, infinite loop conditions due to excessive symbol length, pre-loop limit overflow, and out-of-bounds access in 2D image handling. These vulnerabilities affect Red Hat Enterprise Linux versions 8 and 9 and related distributions. A security update addressing these issues is available.

Impact

If exploited, these vulnerabilities could lead to application crashes, denial of service, or potentially other impacts related to memory corruption or infinite loops in Java applications running on affected OpenJDK versions. The exact impact depends on the specific vulnerability but generally involves unsafe memory operations or processing loops. No known exploits in the wild have been reported at this time.

Summary

The java-21-openjdk packages contain several security flaws: CVE-2024-21131 describes a potential UTF8 size overflow; CVE-2024-21138 involves an excessive symbol length that can cause an infinite loop; CVE-2024-21140 is a Range Check Elimination pre-loop limit overflow; CVE-2024-21145 concerns out-of-bounds access in 2D image handling; and CVE-2024-21147 is an array index overflow in RangeCheckElimination. These vulnerabilities have been addressed in security updates released by Red Hat for OpenJDK 21 on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 and 9 platforms. The vendor advisory confirms the availability of patches and provides detailed remediation instructions.

CWE-835Loop with Unreachable Exit Condition ('Infinite Loop') (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product contains an iteration or loop with an exit condition that cannot be reached, i.e., an infinite loop.
CWE-787Out-of-bounds Write (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #5
The product writes data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
Requirements · Language Selection
Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
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.
Operation · Build and Compilation · Environment Hardening
Use automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are offered by certain compilers or compiler extensions. Examples include: the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice, which provide various mechanisms including canary-based detection and range/index…
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.3 (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-1284Improper Validation of Specified Quantity in Input (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product receives input that is expected to specify a quantity (such as size or length), but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the quantity has the required properties.
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
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.3 (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 11 Oct 2026, 22:34 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-835, CWE-787, CWE-1284

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats