Security Resilience

CVE-2024-21742

Apache James Mime4J ≤ 0.8.9

Published
27 February 2024
Modified
17 June 2026
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v3.1 5.3
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
EPSS Score 0.011 65th percentile
Risk Priority 46 floored blend · peak EPSS

CVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.

Summary

CVE-2024-21742 is a medium-severity Injection (CWE-74) vulnerability in Apache James Mime4J. Its CVSS base score is 5.3 (Medium).

Operationally, ranked in the top 35% 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) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

Improper input validation allows for header injection in MIME4J library when using MIME4J DOM for composing message. This can be exploited by an attacker to add unintended headers to MIME messages.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2023-25613Same vendor: Apache
CVE-2023-25141Same vendor: Apache
CVE-2023-33234Same vendor: Apache
CVE-2023-43667Same vendor: Apache
CVE-2024-36522Same vendor: Apache
CVE-2023-51388Same vendor: Apache
CVE-2023-51653Same vendor: Apache
CVE-2021-38294Same vendor: Apache
CVE-2020-13942Same vendor: Apache
CVE-2023-41834Same vendor: Apache

Affected Assets

apache
james mime4j
≤ 0.8.9

Mitigating Controls

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

SI-10 directly requires validation of information inputs to reject malformed or special-element content before it reaches downstream parsers.

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.8.15 Logging partial match
finds

Logging supports detection of injection attempts but does not prevent the weakness.

finds

Monitoring activities can identify active injection attacks after they occur.

blocks

A.8.25 mandates a secure SDLC process that includes secure coding guidelines, security requirements, checkpoints, testing (scans/penetration), and developer training to reduce injection flaws, but does not itself enforce or guarantee neutralization of special elements at runtime.

blocks

Application security requirements explicitly call for controls against injection attacks in software design.

blocks

A.8.27 mandates security-by-design principles (including distrust external input, data validation/sanitization, secure architecture layers, and design reviews against attack patterns) that reach injection when applied to output construction; this stops exploitation for a minority slice (e.g. where principles drive sanitization) but leaves most code-level injection defects untouched without further implementation rigor.

prevents

Secure coding standards require proper neutralization of special elements, directly addressing CWE-74.

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-74, a class-level weakness, and none of its children carries one either.

References