CVE-2024-10094
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedPega Platform versions 6.x to Infinity 24.1.1 are affected by an issue with Improper Control of Generation of Code
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · moderate confidencePega Platform versions 6.x through Infinity 24.1.1 contain a code injection vulnerability allowing improper control of code generation, likely through unsafe use of dynamic code execution functions. This enables remote attackers to inject and execute arbitrary code, explaining the Critical severity rating.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data>= 6.0, < 8.1.9>= 8.2, < 8.2.8>= 8.3.0, < 8.3.6>= 8.4.0, < 8.4.6>= 8.5, < 8.5.6>= 8.6.0, < 8.6.6 >= 8.7.0, <= 8.8.5>= 23.1.0, < 23.1.4 >= 24.1.0, < 24.1.2 CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Locate the Pega Platform installation directoryCheck common installation paths such as /opt/pega, C:\pega, or the directory specified during initial setup. Look for the prweb.war or PegaRULES.jar files which indicate a Pega installation.Affected if The Pega installation directory exists on the system
-
Identify the installed Pega Platform versionLocate the version manifest or properties file. Common locations include: prpega.jar, PegaRULES.jar, or the WEB-INF/classes directory within the deployment. Look for a file named prversion.properties, manifest, or check the prengine log files for a line starting with 'Pega' or 'PRPC' showing the version number.Affected if The version number cannot be determined or is not visible in standard locations
-
Compare installed version against affected rangesCheck if the identified version falls within any of these vulnerable ranges: 6.0 to 8.1.8, 8.2 to 8.2.7, 8.3.0 to 8.3.5, 8.4.0 to 8.4.5, 8.5 to 8.5.5, 8.6.0 to 8.6.5, 8.7.0 to 8.8.5, 23.1.0 to 23.1.3, or 24.1.0 to 24.1.1. Compare the major.minor.patch version numbers found in step 2 against these ranges.Affected if The installed version matches any of the listed vulnerable version ranges
-
Check Pega diagnostics or admin console for version infoIf direct file access is limited, access the Pega diagnostic page (typically at /prweb/PRServletApp or /prhelp) or the Admin Console. Log in with administrative credentials and navigate to System > Release or About Pega to view the exact version and build number.Affected if The diagnostic or admin console reveals a version within the affected ranges
The environment is affected if the installed Pega Platform version matches any of the vulnerable version ranges (6.0 through 8.8.5, 23.1.0 through 23.1.3, or 24.1.0 through 24.1.1).
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
dbcve · scoped8.1.98.2.88.3.6
Upgrade to the latest Pega Platform version to obtain the vendor patch. If immediate patching is not feasible, restrict network access to Pega administrative interfaces and review code for unsafe eval(), exec(), or similar dynamic execution patterns.
Upgrade to 8.4.6 (latest stable fix) or the appropriate fixed version for your branch: 8.1.9, 8.2.8, or 8.3.6
- 1. Identify current Pega Platform version by checking the system banner or administration console
- 2. Determine appropriate upgrade path based on current version branch (8.1.x, 8.2.x, 8.3.x, or 8.4.x)
- 3. Review Pega upgrade guide for the target version to understand prerequisites
- 4. Perform a full backup of the Pega database and file system before upgrading
- 5. Test the upgrade in a non-production environment first
- 6. Apply the upgrade by installing the fixed version (8.1.9, 8.2.8, 8.3.6, or 8.4.6 respectively)
- 7. Verify the upgrade was successful and the application functions correctly
- 8. Confirm the vulnerability is resolved by checking the system information
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing24.0 h
- Review / QA8.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $15,232.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-10094 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2024-10094 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data