Vigilbase CVEConnect your agent

Unsafe Reflection in Github Enterprise Server leading to Command Injection

Not in CISA KEVCVE-2024-0200CWE-470

Not confirmed exploited. 1 of 8 rule sources name it. Our CRS test: partly blocked.

Edge rules
1/8
Our test
Partly blocked
CVSS
7.2
EPSS
71.7% Top 0.6%
Posts, 14d
02026-10-21: 0 posts2026-10-22: 0 posts2026-10-23: 0 posts2026-10-24: 0 posts2026-10-25: 0 posts2026-10-26: 0 posts2026-10-27: 0 posts2026-10-28: 0 posts2026-10-29: 0 posts2026-10-30: 0 posts2026-10-31: 0 posts2026-11-01: 0 posts2026-11-02: 0 posts2026-11-03: 0 posts
Published
2024-01-16
An unsafe reflection vulnerability was identified in GitHub Enterprise Server that could lead to reflection injection. This vulnerability could lead to the execution of user-controlled methods and remote code execution. To exploit this… More

An unsafe reflection vulnerability was identified in GitHub Enterprise Server that could lead to reflection injection. This vulnerability could lead to the execution of user-controlled methods and remote code execution. To exploit this bug, an actor would need to be logged into an account on the GHES instance with the organization owner role. This vulnerability affected all versions of GitHub Enterprise Server prior to 3.12 and was fixed in versions 3.8.13, 3.9.8, 3.10.5, and 3.11.3. This vulnerability was reported via the GitHub Bug Bounty program.

Ask Vigil

AI · answers from this page
Ask about CVE-2024-0200: who's covered, what to patch first, how vendors compare. I cite sources and won't help with attacks.

Workers AI (Llama 3.3). Can be wrong: check the cited source.

Severity, decoded

CVSS 3.1
High · 7.2 / 10

Exploitable over the network under specific conditions, with high privileges and no user interaction, leading to full loss of confidentiality and low impact on integrity and availability, and the impact can reach components beyond the vulnerable one.

Over the internetAdmin login neededNo user actionHard to pull offSpreads beyond the appSerious impact
How the score is built8 metrics
  • Attack vectorAn attacker can reach it over the internet; no access to your network needed.
    Network
  • Attack complexityThe attack only works when conditions outside the attacker's control line up.
    High
  • Privileges requiredThe attacker needs an administrator-level account.
    High
  • User interactionNo one has to click or open anything; the attack works on its own.
    None
  • ScopeThe attack can spread beyond the vulnerable component to other parts of the system.
    Changed
  • Confidentiality impactAn attacker can read all data the affected component holds, or the most sensitive parts of it.
    High
  • Integrity impactAn attacker can change some data, but with limited control or limited effect.
    Low
  • Availability impactAn attacker can slow the component down or interrupt it now and then.
    Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:L
CISA's assessmentSSVC, from the CVE record
ExploitationNone

CISA has seen no public exploit and no attacks.

AutomatableNo

At least one step needs hands-on work, which slows mass attacks.

Technical impactTotal

A successful attack gives full control over the affected software or all of its data.

Public exploits

1 found
0 Metasploit0 Exploit-DB1 Scanner template0 GitHub PoCs

Links are to third-party code: never run it outside an isolated lab.

Timeline

  1. 2024-01-16
    CVE published
    CVE List
  2. 2024-08-13
    F5 ships a rule
    GitHub Enterprise Server Remote Code Execution
  3. 2026-11-02
    Our test: OWASP Core Rule Set blocked part of it
    paranoia level 1, anomaly threshold 5, default CRS settings
  4. 2026-11-02
    Our test: OWASP Core Rule Set blocked part of it
    paranoia level 2, anomaly threshold 5, default CRS settings

Social

2026-10-21: 0 posts2026-10-22: 0 posts2026-10-23: 0 posts2026-10-24: 0 posts2026-10-25: 0 posts2026-10-26: 0 posts2026-10-27: 0 posts2026-10-28: 0 posts2026-10-29: 0 posts2026-10-30: 0 posts2026-10-31: 0 posts2026-11-01: 0 posts2026-11-02: 0 posts2026-11-03: 0 posts

No posts seen yet on X, Bluesky, Mastodon, Hacker News or GitHub.

Vendor statements

Quoted
CloudflareWAF Managed RulesBefore feed history

The CVE predates the oldest entry in this vendor's public feed, so a rule may exist that we cannot see.

AWSAWS WAF Managed RulesNo public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. AWS often describes a vulnerability without naming its CVE (for example "Log4j"). We count only entries that name the CVE, so AWS coverage is understated.

Microsoft AzureFront Door and Application Gateway WAF (DRS)No public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. The rule tables name CVEs but carry no dates, so Azure is left out of every time-to-rule figure.

Google CloudCloud Armor preconfigured WAF rulesBefore feed history

The CVE predates the oldest entry in this vendor's public feed, so a rule may exist that we cannot see.

FastlyNext-Gen WAF virtual patchesBefore feed history

The CVE predates the oldest entry in this vendor's public feed, so a rule may exist that we cannot see.

F5Attack signatures (Distributed Cloud WAF)1 quoteRule published

First rule 2024-08-13, 210 days after the CVE was published.

2024-08-13New rule200104974Source
Added: signature 200104974 "GitHub Enterprise Server Remote Code Execution" (Server Side Code Injection, risk High), systems: Other Web Server. References: CVE-2024-0200.
AkamaiApp & API Protector (Adaptive Security Engine)No public source

This vendor publishes no machine-readable rule changelog we can check.

OWASP CRSCore Rule Set (open source, used inside many WAFs)No public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. CRS rarely names CVEs: it relies on generic detections. Our own lab measures what it actually blocks.