CVE-2024-0507
RCE in Github Enterprise Server ≤ 3.8.13
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:NCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2024-0507 is a medium-severity Improper Input Validation (CWE-20) vulnerability in Github Enterprise Server. Its CVSS base score is 6.5 (Medium).
Operationally, ranked in the top 0.7% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — 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.
The vulnerability CVE-2024-0507 is a command injection flaw, also referenced under CWE-20 and CWE-77, present in the Management Console component of GitHub Enterprise Server. It affected every version of the product until patches were issued in releases 3.11.3, 3.10.5, 3.9.8, and 3.8.13. The issue carries a CVSS 3.1 score of 6.5 with a network attack vector, low complexity, and high-privilege requirement, resulting in high confidentiality and integrity impact.
An attacker holding a Management Console account with the editor role can supply crafted input that triggers command injection, enabling escalation to higher privileges on the affected instance. Exploitation requires authenticated access to the console but no additional user interaction once that foothold exists.
GitHub's release notes for the fixed versions document the remediation and confirm the vulnerability was identified through the company's bug bounty program. Administrators are advised to upgrade to one of the listed patched releases to eliminate the command injection vector.
The associated EPSS score reached a peak of 0.7770 on 2025-12-11 before receding to the current value of 0.7288.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-16302
Vulnerability Data
An attacker with access to a Management Console user account with the editor role could escalate privileges through a command injection vulnerability in the Management Console. This vulnerability affected all versions of GitHub Enterprise Server and was fixed in versions…
more
3.11.3, 3.10.5, 3.9.8, and 3.8.13 This vulnerability was reported via the GitHub Bug Bounty program.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover missing input validation through analysis or test cases.
SI-10 directly requires validity checks on information inputs, structurally preventing improper or missing validation.
Requiring documented development standards and tools can embed input-validation practices into the engineering process.
Secure engineering principles include proper neutralization and safe command construction practices.
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 security requirements, secure coding guidelines, checkpoints, testing (incl. code scans) and developer training in the SDLC, which reaches a slice of input validation defects but leaves the majority (incomplete enforcement, second-order inputs, parser differentials, post-validation canonicalization) unaddressed as in the SA-3 and A.8.28 anchors.
Mandating input controls that include integrity checks and input validation ensures that untrusted data is examined before use, blocking the root cause of many injection and malformed-data weaknesses.
Security-by-design principles explicitly call for data validation and sanitization at every layer, reducing the chance that malformed or malicious input will be processed without scrutiny.
Requiring language-specific secure coding standards, peer review, SAST and documented mitigation of common programming errors forces validation of all inputs before they are trusted.
Testing against a defined set of requirements and using code review plus vulnerability scanning forces validation of inputs and handling of unanticipated conditions, reducing the chance that malformed data will be accepted.
Hardening callouts derived
DISA STIG baselines are authored against specific weaknesses. Where this CVE cites a broad weakness class, the mapping is not asserted at that abstraction (owner ruling, 2026-09-25: grade only at Base and below), so no rule is shown here rather than a rule shown against the wrong grain.
- No fine-grained STIG row for CWE-20, a class-level weakness, and none of its children carries one either.
- No fine-grained STIG row for CWE-77, a class-level weakness, and none of its children carries one either.