Vigilbase CVEConnect your agent

Regular Expression Denial of Service in micromatch

Not in CISA KEVCVE-2024-4067CWE-1333

Not confirmed exploited. 1 of 8 rule sources name it.

Edge rules
1/8
Our test
No exploit yet
CVSS
5.3
EPSS
1.4% Top 27%
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
2024-05-13
The NPM package `micromatch` prior to 4.0.8 is vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS). The vulnerability occurs in `micromatch.braces()` in `index.js` because the pattern `.*` will greedily match anything. By passing a… More

The NPM package `micromatch` prior to 4.0.8 is vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS). The vulnerability occurs in `micromatch.braces()` in `index.js` because the pattern `.*` will greedily match anything. By passing a malicious payload, the pattern matching will keep backtracking to the input while it doesn't find the closing bracket. As the input size increases, the consumption time will also increase until it causes the application to hang or slow down. There was a merged fix but further testing shows the issue persists. This issue should be mitigated by using a safe pattern that won't start backtracking the regular expression due to greedy matching. This issue was fixed in version 4.0.8.

Ask Vigil

AI · answers from this page
Ask about CVE-2024-4067: 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
Medium · 5.3 / 10

Exploitable over the network, with no privileges and no user interaction, leading to low impact on availability.

Over the internetNo login neededNo user actionWorks reliably
How the score is built8 metrics
  • Attack vectorAn attacker can reach it over the internet; no access to your network needed.
    Network
  • Attack complexityNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.
    Low
  • Privileges requiredNo account or login is needed.
    None
  • User interactionNo one has to click or open anything; the attack works on its own.
    None
  • ScopeThe damage stays within the vulnerable component.
    Unchanged
  • Confidentiality impactNo data is exposed.
    None
  • Integrity impactData cannot be changed by the attacker.
    None
  • Availability impactAn attacker can slow the component down or interrupt it now and then.
    Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CISA's assessmentSSVC, from the CVE record
ExploitationNone

CISA has seen no public exploit and no attacks.

AutomatableYes

Attackers can script the attack end to end and hit many targets at once.

Technical impactPartial

A successful attack gives limited control over the affected software or limited access to its data.

Public exploits

None found
0 Metasploit0 Exploit-DB0 Scanner template0 GitHub PoCs

No exploit in Exploit-DB or Metasploit, and no scanner template. That lowers, but doesn't remove, the chance of mass exploitation.

Timeline

  1. 2024-05-13
    CVE published
    CVE List
  2. 2024-11-12
    F5 ships a rule
    Micromatch ReDoS

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)2 quotesRule published

First rule 2024-11-12, 183 days after the CVE was published.

2024-11-12New rule200012089Source
Added: signature 200012089 "Micromatch ReDoS" (Denial of Service, risk High), systems: Node.js. References: CVE-2024-4067.
2025-01-21Updated200012089Source
Updated: signature 200012089 "Micromatch ReDoS" (Denial of Service, risk High), systems: Node.js. References: CVE-2024-4067, CVE-2024-4068.
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.