CVE-2024-39700: Remote Code Execution (RCE) vulnerability in jupyterlab extension template `update-integration-tests` GitHub Action
Noroxi assessment
Priority: Monitor (action score 39/100)
- Public proof-of-concept code exists (GitHub); there is no record of exploitation in the wild.
- Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days: 1% (FIRST EPSS); higher than 65.4% of all records.
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it. No account or password is required. No user action is required. No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
- According to CISA the attack is automatable: targets can be found by mass scanning.
- Fixed version: jupyterlab (PyPI) 4.3.0.
Low priority for now. Upgrade to jupyterlab (PyPI) 4.3.0 or later.
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
JupyterLab extension template is a `copier` template for JupyterLab extensions. Repositories created using this template with `test` option include `update-integration-tests.yml` workflow which has an RCE vulnerability. Extension authors hosting their code on GitHub are urged to upgrade the template to the latest version. Users who made changes to `update-integration-tests.yml`, accept overwriting of this file and re-apply your changes later. Users may wish to temporarily disable GitHub Actions while working on the upgrade. We recommend rebasing all open pull requests from untrusted users as actions may run using the version from the `main` branch at the time when the pull request was created. Users who are upgrading from template version prior to 4.3.0 may wish to leave out proposed changes to the release workflow for now as it requires additional configuration.
- Published
- Jul 16, 2024
- Updated
- Nov 3, 2026
- EPSS
- 1.0% · 65th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-94
Report tools
Action score
39
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 39 / 40 · 9.8 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 0 / 30 · 1.0%
CISA SSVC decision
- Exploitation
- proof of concept
- Automatable
- yes
- Technical impact
- total
Vulnrichment: CISA's decision-tree inputs.
CNA vs NVD score
- NVD
- 9.8
- CNA · GitHub_M
- 9.9
- 0.1 point gap
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
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
- Proof of concept exists, no weaponized module
- A fix has been released
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 |
|---|---|---|
| jupyter | jupyterlab | cpe:2.3:a:jupyter:jupyterlab |
Affected versions
NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.
- jupyter jupyterlabbefore 4.3.0
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.
jupyterlab extension-template
- < 4.3.3affected
Package-level exposure
OSV and GitHub Advisory data: ecosystem, package and range. SBOM matching uses this table.
| Ecosystem | Package | Affected range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| PyPI | jupyterlab | before 4.3.0 | 4.3.0 |
Same product
jupyter: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2021-32797JupyterLab: XSS due to lack of sanitization of the action attribute of an html <form>39Monitor
- CVE-2026-42266JupyterLab has an Extension Manager API/GUI Policy Discrepancy allowing 3rd party (malicious) extensions install via POST request.37Monitor
- CVE-2026-42557jupyterlab: Command linker attributes in HTML enable one-click command execution from untrusted content34Monitor
Published before and after this one in the same product
- ← EarlierCVE-2024-22420Jan 19, 2024 · Stored cross site scripting in Markdown Preview in JupyterLab24Monitor
- ← EarlierCVE-2024-22421Jan 19, 2024 · Potential authentication and CSRF tokens leak in JupyterLab26Monitor
- Later →CVE-2024-43805Aug 28, 2024 · HTML injection in Jupyter Notebook and JupyterLab leading to DOM Clobbering24Monitor
Remediation
Which version to upgrade to
Fix versions compiled from the vendor, package registries and Microsoft. Verify the vendor's note before upgrading.
| Product / package | Fixed version | Source |
|---|---|---|
| PyPI:jupyterlab | 4.3.0 | Package registry (OSV) |
Exploit status
Proof of concept available
A public proof of concept or detection signature exists. Exploit knowledge is out there; don't delay patching.
Evidence
- Proof-of-concept repository on GitHub ×2
Noroxi does not host or link to exploit code. Metasploit module names and Nuclei template ids are shown (names, not code); Exploit-DB entries and PoC repositories are given as counts only.
| Source | Kind | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Proof-of-concept repository on GitHub | stars:1 | 2024-07-29 |
| Proof-of-concept repository on GitHub | stars:0 | 2026-09-01 |
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.
- Published
- First PoC+12 d
- TodayNov 4, 2026+840 d
No history yet (it accumulates with the daily EPSS job).
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.
No nightly-computed relations.
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
No known public program.
Source: bounty-targets-data (public HackerOne, Bugcrowd, Intigriti, YesWeHack listings).
Technical details
Attack conditions
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it.
- No account or password is required.
- No user action is required.
- No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
If successful
- Confidentiality
- high · data can be read
- Integrity
- high · data or configuration can be modified
- Availability
- high · the service can be disrupted
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality impact
- High
- Integrity impact
- High
- Availability impact
- High
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-94 · Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')CVSS vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
nvd-primary
Attack context
MITRE CAPEC attack patterns and ATT&CK techniques for this weakness class (CWE). A starting point for detection rules and threat hunting.
Attack patterns (CAPEC)
Change log
- Fix✗ → ✓
For records you follow, these changes also arrive as notifications. →
References
Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.