CVE-2024-0200
Github Enterprise Server 3.8.0 – 3.8.13
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:LCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2024-0200 is a high-severity Unsafe Reflection (CWE-470) vulnerability in Github Enterprise Server. Its CVSS base score is 7.2 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Data Obfuscation (T1001); ranked in the top 0.6% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SI-10 (Information Input Validation) and AC-3 (Access Enforcement) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
An unsafe reflection vulnerability identified as CWE-470 was present in GitHub Enterprise Server, allowing reflection injection that could result in execution of attacker-controlled methods and remote code execution. The flaw affected every version of the product prior to 3.12 and carried a CVSS 3.1 score of 7.2.
Exploitation requires an authenticated actor holding the organization owner role on the GitHub Enterprise Server instance; with that access the attacker can invoke arbitrary methods leading to code execution on the server. No unauthenticated or lower-privileged vectors are described.
Official release notes for versions 3.8.13, 3.9.8, 3.10.5, and 3.11.3 state that the issue has been corrected in those builds, and administrators are advised to upgrade any earlier installations. The EPSS score reached a peak of 0.7450 with a current value of 0.6951, indicating sustained but not sharply rising exploitation interest after disclosure.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-15999
Vulnerability Data
An unsafe reflection vulnerability was identified in GitHub Enterprise Server that could lead to reflection injection. This vulnerability could lead to the execution of user-controlled methods and remote code execution. To exploit this bug, an actor would need to be…
more
logged into an account on the GHES instance with the organization owner role. This vulnerability affected all versions of GitHub Enterprise Server prior to 3.12 and was fixed in versions 3.8.13, 3.9.8, 3.10.5, and 3.11.3. This vulnerability was reported via the GitHub Bug Bounty program.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Input validation directly stops externally supplied class or method names from selecting improper code via reflection.
Enforces authorization checks on the code or classes ultimately invoked, blocking unauthorized selections even if reflection is used.
Limits privileges of any code reached through unsafe reflection, reducing blast radius without stopping the selection itself.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Vulnerability identification processes can discover unsafe reflection during code review or scanning.
Preventing execution of unauthorized code can block exploitation of unsafe reflection at runtime.
Secure SDLC practices directly avoid introducing externally controlled class selection via reflection.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
A.8.25 mandates secure SDLC practices including secure coding guidelines, security requirements, checkpoints, testing (scans/penetration), and developer training that can catch/prevent unsafe reflection flaws during development; this stops exploitation for a minority slice (first-party code written under the process) but leaves the bulk of the weakness (e.g. in third-party libraries, legacy code, or incomplete enforcement) untouched.
Application security requirements can explicitly prohibit or constrain reflection based on untrusted input.
A.8.27 mandates security-by-design principles (e.g. distrust external input, least privilege, secure session control, data validation/sanitization, design reviews against attack patterns) that reach a slice of unsafe reflection cases but leave a bounded remainder (e.g. reflection in third-party libraries or dynamic class loading where principles are applied incompletely).
Secure coding standards directly forbid unsafe reflection and require whitelisting or static alternatives.