Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:NSummary
CVE-2026-24737 is a high-severity Improper Encoding or Escaping of Output (CWE-116) vulnerability in Parall Jspdf. Its CVSS base score is 8.1 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Content Injection (T1659); ranked at the 42th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SI-10 (Information Input Validation) and SA-8 (Security and Privacy Engineering Principles) — 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.
CVE-2026-24737 is a high-severity vulnerability in the jsPDF JavaScript library, which is used to generate PDFs in web applications, prior to version 4.1.0. The issue stems from improper input handling in the Acroform module, allowing user-controlled properties and methods—specifically AcroformChoiceField.addOption, AcroformChoiceField.setOptions, AcroFormCheckBox.appearanceState, and AcroFormRadioButton.appearanceState—to inject arbitrary PDF objects, such as JavaScript actions. Published on 2026-02-02, it is rated 8.1 on the CVSS v3.1 scale (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N) and maps to CWE-116 (Improper Encoding or Escaping of Output).
An attacker can exploit this vulnerability by supplying unsanitized input to the affected APIs during PDF generation in a web context. This enables the creation of a malicious PDF that executes injected JavaScript actions when opened by a victim in a PDF reader, requiring user interaction such as clicking to open the file. Remote attackers need no privileges and face low complexity, potentially achieving high impacts on confidentiality and integrity, such as data theft or manipulation within the victim's environment.
Mitigation is provided in jsPDF version 4.1.0, which patches the vulnerable API members. Security advisories recommend updating to this version immediately. Details are available in the GitHub security advisory (GHSA-pqxr-3g65-p328), release notes for v4.1.0, and the fixing commit (da291a5f01b96282545c9391996702cdb8879f79).
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-5297
Vulnerability Data
jsPDF is a library to generate PDFs in JavaScript. Prior to 4.1.0, user control of properties and methods of the Acroform module allows users to inject arbitrary PDF objects, such as JavaScript actions. If given the possibility to pass unsanitized…
more
input to one of the following methods or properties, a user can inject arbitrary PDF objects, such as JavaScript actions, which are executed when the victim opens the document. The vulnerable API members are AcroformChoiceField.addOption, AcroformChoiceField.setOptions, AcroFormCheckBox.appearanceState, and AcroFormRadioButton.appearanceState. The vulnerability has been fixed in jsPDF@4.1.0.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.1.2V1.2.1V1.2.3V1.3.2
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Input validation directly requires checking and neutralizing special elements in externally influenced data before it is used to build executable statements such as EL expressions.
Security engineering principles include requirements for safe construction and sanitization of dynamic statements, structurally preventing expression-language injection at design time.
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 directly require proper output encoding to prevent injection and message malformation.
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.
Secure coding standards explicitly require correct output encoding and escaping to preserve message structure.
Security testing can detect missing or incorrect encoding but does not itself implement the control.
Secure development life cycle mandates output encoding/escaping practices that directly prevent improper encoding.
Application security requirements include explicit rules for safe output handling and encoding.
Secure architecture principles reduce the likelihood of missing encoding but do not prescribe the actual technique.