CVE-2024-40489
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 · uneditedThere is an injection vulnerability in jeecg boot versions 3.0.0 to 3.5.3 due to lax character filtering, which allows attackers to execute arbitrary code on components through specially crafted HTTP requests.
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 confidencejeecg-boot versions 3.0.0 through 3.5.3 contain a code injection vulnerability caused by insufficient input validation/character filtering in HTTP request handling components. Attackers can send specially crafted HTTP requests containing malicious payloads that bypass the weak filtering logic, enabling arbitrary code execution on the affected system.
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>= 3.0, <= 3.5.3CVSS 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.
-
Identify if Jeecg Boot is installedSearch for jeecg-boot related files, directories, or running Java processes. Look for JAR files with 'jeecg' in the name, or check application startup logs for 'jeecg-boot' references.Affected if Jeecg Boot application is found running or deployed in the environment
-
Determine the installed versionCheck the version file (typically pom.xml, version.properties, or the JAR manifest), or review startup logs for the jeecg-boot version number during application initialization.Affected if Installed version falls within >= 3.0 and <= 3.5.3
-
Verify HTTP endpoints are exposedReview server configuration files (application.yml or application.properties) for 'server.port' settings and ensure the application is binding to a network interface accessible externally. Check for exposed REST API endpoints under /api/ paths.Affected if The application HTTP endpoints are reachable from external networks or untrusted sources
-
Inspect HTTP request handling for weak filteringReview the application's filter/interceptor configuration classes for input validation logic. Look for filter classes that handle request parameters and check if character filtering is present but appears minimal or easily bypassed.Affected if Custom request filters exist but rely on weak character filtering logic that could be bypassed
-
Check for signs of exploitationReview HTTP access logs for unusual request patterns, especially POST requests to API endpoints containing suspicious characters like '$', '{', '}', command separators, or encoded payloads. Look for unexpected file creations or process executions in system logs.Affected if Suspicious patterns found in access logs or indicators of unauthorized code execution appear in system logs
The environment is affected if Jeecg Boot version 3.0.0 through 3.5.3 is installed and HTTP endpoints are exposed, warranting immediate version verification and log inspection.
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 · scopedUpgrade jeecg-boot to version 3.5.4 or later which contains proper input validation fixes. If immediate patching is not possible, implement Web Application Firewall (WAF) rules to block known injection patterns and restrict external access to affected endpoints.
Latest Jeecg Boot version beyond 3.5.3 (check official releases for the first version containing the security fix)
- 1. Identify all deployed instances of Jeecg Boot versions 3.0.0 through 3.5.3 in your environment
- 2. Review the official Jeecg Boot release repository (github.com/jeecgboot/JeecgBoot) for security advisories related to CVE-2024-40489
- 3. Download and test the latest stable release that addresses this vulnerability
- 4. Before deploying to production, validate the upgrade in a staging environment
- 5. Apply the upgrade following standard Jeecg Boot upgrade procedures
- 6. After upgrading, verify that the character filtering improvements are functioning correctly
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA6.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $9,024.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-40489 — 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-2024-40489 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