Cyber Resilience

CVE-2024-41942

Jupyterhub ≤ 4.1.6

Published
08 August 2024
Modified
12 August 2024
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v3.1 7.2
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
EPSS Score 0.0059 45th percentile
Risk Priority 53 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2024-41942 is a high-severity Improper Handling of Insufficient Privileges (CWE-274) vulnerability in Jupyter Jupyterhub. Its CVSS base score is 7.2 (High).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 45th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.

The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to AC-24 (Access Control Decisions) and AC-25 (Reference Monitor) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

JupyterHub is software that allows one to create a multi-user server for Jupyter notebooks. Prior to versions 4.1.6 and 5.1.0, if a user is granted the `admin:users` scope, they may escalate their own privileges by making themselves a full admin…

more

user. The impact is relatively small in that `admin:users` is already an extremely privileged scope only granted to trusted users. In effect, `admin:users` is equivalent to `admin=True`, which is not intended. Note that the change here only prevents escalation to the built-in JupyterHub admin role that has unrestricted permissions. It does not prevent users with e.g. `groups` permissions from granting themselves or other users permissions via group membership, which is intentional. Versions 4.1.6 and 5.1.0 fix this issue.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques

T1068 Exploitation for Privilege Escalation Privilege Escalation
Adversaries may exploit software vulnerabilities in an attempt to elevate privileges.
T1548 Abuse Elevation Control Mechanism Privilege Escalation
Adversaries may circumvent mechanisms designed to control privilege elevation to gain higher-level permissions.
Derived from this CVE’s CWE(s) via the direct CWE→ATT&CK cross-walk.

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2026-40864Same product: Jupyter Jupyterhub
CVE-2024-28233Same product: Jupyter Jupyterhub
CVE-2026-33709Same product: Jupyter Jupyterhub
CVE-2023-35928Shared CWE-274
CVE-2024-20324Shared CWE-274
CVE-2024-21648Shared CWE-274
CVE-2025-54511Shared CWE-274
CVE-2025-20156Shared CWE-274
CVE-2023-32494Shared CWE-274
CVE-2026-33005Shared CWE-274

Affected Assets

jupyter
jupyterhub
5.0.0 · ≤ 4.1.6

Mitigating Controls

Control response

Prevent
Stop it (NIST 800-53)

Detect
Catch it (NIST detect / respond)

Harden
Shrink the surface (DISA STIG)
  • 5 hardening rules · 3 OS baselines
Validate
Prove the fix (OWASP ASVS)

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

Always-invoked reference monitor guarantees privilege checks occur and cannot be bypassed or mishandled.

Enforces approved authorizations so insufficient privileges produce a proper denial instead of mishandled failure.

Requires every access request to be decided against current authorizations, preventing ad-hoc privilege handling.

Least-privilege assignment reduces the frequency of operations that encounter insufficient privileges.

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.

PR.AA-05 mostly match
prevents

Enforcing least-privilege access policies directly prevents improper handling of insufficient privileges.

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.

prevents

Privileged-access-rights control directly limits the situations in which insufficient privileges can occur.

prevents

Information-access-restriction mechanisms enforce least-privilege checks that mitigate the weakness at runtime.

prevents

Access control policy defines privilege boundaries but does not guarantee correct runtime handling when privileges prove insufficient.

prevents

Access-rights provisioning and review reduce privilege gaps, yet do not address the software’s failure to handle insufficient privileges gracefully.

mitigates

Restricting privileged utilities reduces exposure but does not address how the application handles privilege shortfalls.

prevents

Secure SDLC practices can include privilege checks, yet the control itself does not mandate handling of insufficient privileges.

Hardening callouts derived

Configuration rules from DISA STIG baselines that bear on weaknesses of the type cited by this CVE. Each rule is shown with the relationship its mapping actually records, against the CWE it was authored against. Derived via CVE→CWE over `controls_xwalks` (authoritative rows only; rows rated `none` are excluded).

Oracle Linux 9 (2 rules)
  • V-271452 OL 9 must use a Linux Security Module configured to enforce limits on system services. prevents CWE-274
  • V-271640 OL 9 must be configured so that the Network File System (NFS) is configured to use RPCSEC_GSS. prevents CWE-274
RHEL 9 (1 rule)
  • V-258078 RHEL 9 must use a Linux Security Module configured to enforce limits on system services. prevents CWE-274

References