Vigilbase CVEConnect your agent

ServiceNow Incomplete List of Disallowed Inputs Vulnerability

Exploited · KEV 2024-07-29CVE-2024-5217CWE-184

Exploited since 2024-07-29. 1 of 8 rule sources name it. Our CRS test: blocked.

Edge rules
1/8
Our test
Blocked
CVSS
9.2
EPSS
99.6% Top 0.1%
Posts, 14d
02026-10-20: 0 posts2026-10-21: 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 posts
Published
2024-07-10
ServiceNow has addressed an input validation vulnerability that was identified in the Washington DC, Vancouver, and earlier Now Platform releases. This vulnerability could enable an unauthenticated user to remotely execute code within the… More

ServiceNow has addressed an input validation vulnerability that was identified in the Washington DC, Vancouver, and earlier Now Platform releases. This vulnerability could enable an unauthenticated user to remotely execute code within the context of the Now Platform. The vulnerability is addressed in the listed patches and hot fixes below, which were released during the June 2024 patching cycle. If you have not done so already, we recommend applying security patches relevant to your instance as soon as possible.

Ask Vigil

AI · answers from this page
Ask about CVE-2024-5217: 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 4.0
Critical · 9.2 / 10

Exploitable over the network under specific conditions, with no privileges and no user interaction, leading to full loss of confidentiality, integrity and availability.

Over the internetNo login neededNo user actionWorks reliablyFull compromise
How the score is built11 metrics
  • Attack vectorAn attacker can reach it over the internet; no access to your network needed.
    Network
  • Attack complexityNo built-in defences have to be bypassed; the attack works reliably.
    Low
  • Attack requirementsThe attack only works under specific conditions, such as a race or a particular setup.
    Present
  • Privileges requiredNo account or login is needed.
    None
  • User interactionNo one has to click or open anything; the attack works on its own.
    None
  • Confidentiality impact (vulnerable system)An attacker can read all data the affected component holds, or the most sensitive parts of it.
    High
  • Integrity impact (vulnerable system)An attacker can change any data or files the affected component protects.
    High
  • Availability impact (vulnerable system)An attacker can take the component down completely or keep it from serving anyone.
    High
  • Confidentiality impact (other systems)Other systems' data is not exposed.
    None
  • Integrity impact (other systems)Other systems' data cannot be changed.
    None
  • Availability impact (other systems)Other systems keep working normally.
    None
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
CISA's assessmentSSVC, from the CVE record
ExploitationActive

Attackers are exploiting this in the wild.

AutomatableYes

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

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. 2024-07-10
    CVE published
    CVE List
  2. 2024-07-29
    Added to CISA KEV
    Confirmed exploitation in the wild
  3. 2024-09-17
    F5 ships a rule
    ServiceNow Jelly Template Injection
  4. 2026-11-02
    Our test: OWASP Core Rule Set blocked it
    paranoia level 1, anomaly threshold 5, default CRS settings
  5. 2026-11-02
    Our test: OWASP Core Rule Set blocked it
    paranoia level 2, anomaly threshold 5, default CRS settings

Social

2026-10-20: 0 posts2026-10-21: 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 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 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. Google names few CVEs: the release notes start in May 2024 and the rules reference lists CVEs without dates. Its cve-canary rules are opt-in.

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 2024-09-17, 69 days after the CVE was published.

2024-09-17New rule200104985Source
Added: signature 200104985 "ServiceNow Jelly Template Injection" (Server Side Code Injection, risk High), systems: Java Servlets/JSP. References: CVE-2024-4879, CVE-2024-5217, CVE-2024-5178.
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.