CVE-2024-4879
ServiceNow has addressed an input validation vulnerability that was identified in Vancouver and Washington DC Now Platform releases.
- Severity
- 9.3 / 10
- Critical · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 99.98%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 99.98% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- Yes
- In CISA's catalog since Jul 29, 2024
- Weakness
- CWE-1287 Improper Validation of Specified Type of Input
- Fix
- None yet
- No fixed version published
Description
ServiceNow has addressed an input validation vulnerability that was identified in Vancouver and Washington DC Now Platform releases. This vulnerability could enable an unauthenticated user to remotely execute code within the context of the Now Platform. ServiceNow applied an update to hosted instances, and ServiceNow released the update to our partners and self-hosted customers. Listed below are the patches and hot fixes that address the vulnerability. If you have not done so already, we recommend applying security patches relevant to your instance as soon as possible.
How to fix
No fixed version has been published yet. Until one is, remove or replace the package, or turn off or isolate the affected feature. This page updates when a fix ships.
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 9.3
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Attack requirements
- None
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- High
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- High
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- High
- Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
- None
- Integrity (subsequent systems)
- None
- Availability (subsequent systems)
- None
- Exploit maturity
- Not defined
- Scope
- X
CVSS 3.1 9.8
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
Weakness
CWE-1287: Improper Validation of Specified Type of Input
The product receives input that is expected to be of a certain type, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input is actually of the expected type.
How to prevent it
- Implementation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
References
Advisories
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Added to CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog
- Remediation due for U.S. federal agencies
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-f9x3-7vq9-cph6 Laravel TokenGuard authentication bypass through non-string API credentials | Critical | Same weakness, CWE-1287 |
| GHSA-w8jc-g24h-crhw GitPython command wrappers omit unsafe protocol and option checks | High | Same weakness, CWE-1287 |
| RUSTSEC-2026-0325 Mis-typed WebAssembly tag imports can lead to GC heap corruption | Medium | Same weakness, CWE-1287 |
| GHSA-v39v-59xw-j98g Open WebUI: Any authenticated user can suppress calendar alerts instance-wide via a non-numeric alert value | Medium | Same weakness, CWE-1287 |
| EEF-CVE-2026-82741 Ash.Type.Union with :map_with_tag does not force the tag on dump, enabling tag confusion | Not rated yet | Same weakness, CWE-1287 |
| GHSA-w7cw-xp7h-6j5j Microsoft Security Advisory CVE-2026-50524 – .NET Denial of Service Vulnerability | High | Same weakness, CWE-1287 |
| GHSA-fj8f-m44g-c479 PraisonAI: Prompt Injection Defense Bypassed for HIGH-Level Threats | High | Same weakness, CWE-1287 |
| GHSA-89v6-j5x6-cmj3 YesWiki: SQL injection via the `recentchanges` action `period` argument leads to arbitrary DB read | Medium | Same weakness, CWE-1287 |
MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.
Check your repos with MergeHarbor