CVE-2025-10977VulnerabilityPublished 25 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-10977: JeecgBoot · Improper Authorization

Affects JeecgBootSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 2.3 Low.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

2.3Low

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 33% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P

Base metrics

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low
Vulnerable system integrity: None
Vulnerable system availability: None
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

Threat metrics

Exploit Maturity: POC

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed “remotely exploitable” and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: High: The successful attack depends on the evasion or circumvention of security-enhancing techniques in place that would otherwise hinder the attack. These include: Evasion of exploit mitigation techniques, for example, circumvention of address space randomization (ASLR) or data execution prevention (DEP) must be performed for the attack to be successful; Obtaining target-specific secrets. The attacker must gather some target-specific secret before the attack can be successful. A secret is any piece of information that cannot be obtained through any amount of reconnaissance. To obtain the secret the attacker must perform additional attacks or break otherwise secure measures (e.g. knowledge of a secret key may be needed to break a crypto channel). This operation must be performed for each attacked target.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker requires privileges that provide basic capabilities that are typically limited to settings and resources owned by a single low-privileged user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Exploit Maturity: POC: Based on threat intelligence sources each of the following must apply: · Proof-of-concept is publicly available · No knowledge of reported attempts to exploit this vulnerability · No knowledge of publicly available solutions used to simplify attempts to exploit the vulnerability

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 25 Sep 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 2026-10-25.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
JeecgBoot	Affected =3.8.0 =3.8.1 =3.8.2	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

1. Conduct a thorough audit of all JeecgBoot instances to identify affected versions (3.8.0, 3.8.1, 3.8.2) and isolate them for immediate review. 2. Implement strict access controls and monitoring on the /sys/tenant/deleteBatch endpoint to detect and block unauthorized requests, including rate limiting and anomaly detection. 3. Restrict privileges to the minimum necessary for users and services interacting with tenant deletion functionality to reduce the risk of privilege abuse. 4. Employ Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) with custom rules to detect and prevent manipulation of the 'ids' parameter in deleteBatch requests. 5. If possible, disable or restrict the deleteBatch API endpoint until a vendor patch or official fix is released. 6. Monitor logs for suspicious activity related to tenant deletion operations and establish alerting mechanisms for unusual patterns. 7. Engage in network segmentation to limit exposure of JeecgBoot management interfaces to trusted internal networks only. 8. Prepare incident response plans specific to unauthorized data deletion scenarios to minimize downtime and data loss. 9. Stay updated with vendor communications and community advisories for any forthcoming patches or mitigations.

Description

A vulnerability was identified in JeecgBoot up to 3.8.2. Impacted is an unknown function of the file /sys/tenant/deleteBatch. The manipulation of the argument ids leads to improper authorization. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The complexity of an attack is rather high. The exploitability is considered difficult. The exploit is publicly available and might be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Impact

For European organizations utilizing JeecgBoot, particularly those operating multi-tenant applications or services, this vulnerability could lead to unauthorized deletion of tenant data, impacting data integrity and availability. Although the CVSS score is low, the presence of publicly available exploit code increases the risk of exploitation attempts. Organizations with sensitive or critical tenant data could face operational disruptions, potential data loss, and reputational damage if attackers leverage this vulnerability. The difficulty of exploitation and requirement for some privilege level reduces the likelihood of widespread attacks but does not eliminate the risk, especially in environments where internal threat actors or compromised accounts exist. Given the lack of vendor response and patches, European entities must proactively assess their exposure and implement compensating controls to mitigate potential impacts.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 3 Oct 2025, 00:44 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats