CVE-2024-43367
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2024-43367 is a high-severity Uncaught Exception (CWE-248) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 7.5 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Endpoint Denial of Service (T1499); ranked at the 46th 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 SA-8 (Security and Privacy Engineering Principles) and SC-24 (Fail in Known State) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-2567
Vulnerability Data
Boa is an embeddable and experimental Javascript engine written in Rust. Starting in version 0.16 and prior to version 0.19.0, a wrong assumption made when handling ECMAScript's `AsyncGenerator` operations can cause an uncaught exception on certain scripts. Boa's implementation of…
more
`AsyncGenerator` makes the assumption that the state of an `AsyncGenerator` object cannot change while resolving a promise created by methods of `AsyncGenerator` such as `%AsyncGeneratorPrototype%.next`, `%AsyncGeneratorPrototype%.return`, or `%AsyncGeneratorPrototype%.throw`. However, a carefully constructed code could trigger a state transition from a getter method for the promise's `then` property, which causes the engine to fail an assertion of this assumption, causing an uncaught exception. This could be used to create a Denial Of Service attack in applications that run arbitrary ECMAScript code provided by an external user. Version 0.19.0 is patched to correctly handle this case. Users unable to upgrade to the patched version would want to use `std::panic::catch_unwind` to ensure any exceptions caused by the engine don't impact the availability of the main application.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Security engineering principles include robust exception management to keep the system in a defined state.
Fail-in-known-state reduces the impact when an uncaught exception occurs by preserving a safe condition.
Error handling requirements force structured catching and response to exceptions instead of allowing them to propagate uncaught.
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.
Secure SDLC practices explicitly require structured exception handling to prevent uncaught exceptions from reaching production.
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.
Security testing can detect uncaught exceptions before production deployment.
Secure development lifecycle includes exception-handling standards that reduce uncaught exceptions.
Application security requirements typically mandate robust error and exception handling.
Secure architecture principles call for centralized, comprehensive exception management.
Secure coding standards directly require catching and handling exceptions to prevent crashes or leaks.