CVE-2024-38360: Denial of service via Watched Words in Discourse
Noroxi assessment
Priority: Monitor (action score 19/100)
- The sources we track (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, Metasploit, Nuclei, GitHub) show no public exploit code or exploitation in the wild.
- Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days: 0.46% (FIRST EPSS).
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it. Administrator privileges are required. No user action is required. No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
- No fixed version is recorded, but the references include a patch (commit or PR) link.
Low priority for now. See the fix and affected versions sections below.
Generated automatically from the record's data: CVSS (NVD and CNA), CISA KEV and SSVC, FIRST EPSS, exploit sources, fixed versions. How we calculate it
Primary sources: NVD · CVE.org · FIRST EPSS
Discourse is an open source platform for community discussion. In affected versions by creating replacement words with an almost unlimited number of characters, a moderator can reduce the availability of a Discourse instance. This issue has been addressed in stable version 3.2.3 and in current betas. Users are advised to upgrade. Users unable to upgrade may manually remove the long watched words either via SQL or Rails console.
- Published
- Jul 15, 2024
- Updated
- Jun 17, 2026
- EPSS
- 0.4% · 40th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-400
Report tools
Action score
19
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 19 / 40 · 4.9 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 0 / 30 · 0.4%
CISA SSVC decision
- Exploitation
- none
- Automatable
- no
- Technical impact
- partial
Vulnrichment: CISA's decision-tree inputs.
CNA vs NVD score
- NVD
- —
- CNA · GitHub_M
- 4.9
- NVD has not scored this yet; the score shown is the CNA’s.
The score given by the assigning authority versus NVD’s independent score. A gap means the severity is contested.
Get told when this record changes
- Not in KEV: no record of exploitation in the wild
- No public exploit code on record
- No fixed version yet
If any of these changes, we'll tell you in the daily email digest.
Running WordPress? Scan your site free with WP Lens
Noroxi analysis
What does it mean in your environment?
The assessment above is generated automatically from the record's data; it doesn't know your environment. Our team verifies on your systems whether this vulnerability is actually exploitable and which mitigation is enough.
We use this product, ask for helpAffected systems
Is your version affected?
Pick the product and type the version you run. It's compared with this record's version ranges in your browser; the version isn't sent anywhere.
| Vendor | Product | CPE |
|---|---|---|
| discourse | discourse | cpe:2.3:a:discourse:discourse |
Affected versions
NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.
- discourse discoursebefore 3.3.0
- discourse discoursebefore 3.3.2
- discourse discourse3.3.0
Versions reported by the vendor
Affected version ranges reported by the assigning authority (GitHub_M). Independent of NVD's CPE analysis and usually ahead of it.
discourse discourse
- stable <= 3.2.2, beta <= 3.3.0.beta2, tests-passed <= 3.3.0.beta2affected
Same product
discourse: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2021-41163RCE via malicious SNS subscription payload45Plan
- CVE-2025-68662FinalDestination hostname matching allows SSRF protection bypass39Monitor
- CVE-2023-47121Discourse SSRF vulnerability in Embedding39Monitor
Published before and after this one in the same product
- ← EarlierCVE-2024-36122Jul 3, 2024 · Discourse doesn't limit reviewable user serializer payload17Monitor
- ← EarlierCVE-2024-37157Jul 3, 2024 · Discourse vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery via FastImage21Monitor
- Later →CVE-2024-37165Jul 30, 2024 · Discourse has an XSS via Onebox system24Monitor
Remediation
Which version to upgrade to
Fix versions compiled from the vendor, package registries and Microsoft. Verify the vendor's note before upgrading.
No fix version is recorded for this entry. Check the references for vendor advisories.
Exploit status
No known public exploit
No public exploit has been observed yet. That doesn't mean you're safe, only that the bar is a little higher.
Research context
For pentesters and researchers: attack profile, score disagreement, timeline, patch commits, credits, variant and chain candidates, bug bounty scope. All derived from existing data; no exploit code.
Timeline
From publication to today: proof of concept, Metasploit module, CISA KEV and fix record. Dates are as reported by the sources.
No dated events beyond publication.
FIRST EPSS daily score; only changes of 0.01 or more are recorded (step chart).
Patch and commit links
Commit, PR and diff links among the references. A starting point for patch-diffing and variant hunting; fixes, not exploits.
Credits
All researchersFinders, reporters and analysts named in the CNA record. Click a name for that researcher’s other records.
No credits in the CNA record.
Variant candidates
Same product, same weakness class, within 18 months. If the patch missed the root cause, the sibling bug is here.
- CVE-2025-48053329 days apartDiscourse vulnerable to DoS via large URL payload in PM to a bot34Monitor
- CVE-2024-3729915 days apartDiscourse vulnerable to DoS via Tag Group30Monitor
- CVE-2024-24827122 days apartNo rate limits on POST /uploads endpoint in Discourse30Monitor
- CVE-2023-48297185 days apartDiscourse vulnerable to unlimited mentioned users in message serializer30Monitor
- CVE-2023-44388273 days apartMalicious requests can fill up the log files resulting in a deinal of service in Discourse30Monitor
- CVE-2023-36818367 days apartDenial of service via User Custom Sidebar Section Unlimited Link Creation in discourse30Monitor
Chain candidates
An authentication bypass and a privilege-requiring bug in the same product, published close together: combined they may become an unauthenticated path.
—
Bug bounty scope
The product’s vendor appears in a public program. Matched by name; verify the scope text in the program.
Technical details
Attack conditions
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it.
- Administrator privileges are required.
- No user action is required.
- No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
If successful
- Confidentiality
- none
- Integrity
- none
- Availability
- high · the service can be disrupted
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality impact
- None
- Integrity impact
- None
- Availability impact
- High
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-400 · Uncontrolled Resource ConsumptionCVSS vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
nvd-secondary
Root cause
Code that parses nested structures sets no depth or size limit. A small input can turn into a disproportionate processing load.
The bug in code
The whole CWE-400 classA representative example of this vulnerability class. Not the vendor's source code; it shows the faulty pattern and its fix.
Vulnerable
function expand(node) {
return node.children.map(expand);
}Fixed
const MAX_DEPTH = 32;
function expand(node, depth = 0) {
if (depth > MAX_DEPTH) throw new Error("too deep");
return node.children.map((c) => expand(c, depth + 1));
}Attack context
MITRE CAPEC attack patterns and ATT&CK techniques for this weakness class (CWE). A starting point for detection rules and threat hunting.
Change log
No changes recorded on tracked fields yet. Score, KEV, exploit maturity and fix status changes appear here.
References
Show all references (1 more)Show less
Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.