VulnerabilityPublished 5 Mar 2026

CVE-2025-11143: Eclipse Jetty · Improper Input Validation

Affects Eclipse JettySource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 3.7 Low.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

3.7Low

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 5% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: Low
Availability: None

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

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, 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: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 5 Mar 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: 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 30 Oct 2026.

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.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity 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
Eclipse FoundationEclipse Jetty	Affected >=9.4.0 <=9.4.58 >=10.0.0 <=10.0.26 >=11.0.0 <=11.0.26 >=12.0.0 <=12.0.30 >=12.1.0 <=12.1.4	Fixed in–
GitHubEclipse Jetty`pkg:github/Eclipse Jetty`Other threats	Affected >=9.4.0 <=9.4.58 >=10.0.0 <=10.0.26 >=11.0.0 <=11.0.26 >=12.0.0 <=12.0.30 >=12.1.0 <=12.1.4	Fixed in–
Mavenorg.eclipse.jetty/jetty-server`pkg:maven/org.eclipse.jetty/jetty-server`Other threats	Affected 9.4.0 – 12.1.0 5 affected builds	Fixed in–

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2025-11143, organizations should: 1) Monitor for and apply official Jetty patches or updates once released by the Eclipse Foundation. 2) Conduct thorough testing of URI handling across all components in the application stack to identify and resolve differential parsing issues. 3) Implement consistent URI normalization and validation policies across all layers, including proxies, firewalls, and application servers, to ensure uniform interpretation. 4) Avoid relying solely on blacklists for URI filtering; consider whitelist approaches or more robust input validation frameworks. 5) Employ runtime application self-protection (RASP) or web application firewalls (WAFs) configured to detect anomalous URI patterns. 6) Review and harden security controls that depend on URI parsing to reduce reliance on potentially inconsistent interpretations. 7) Maintain comprehensive logging and monitoring for unusual URI access patterns that may indicate exploitation attempts. 8) Educate developers and security teams about the risks of differential parsing and the importance of consistent input validation.

Description

The Jetty URI parser has some key differences to other common parsers when evaluating invalid or unusual URIs. Differential parsing of URIs in systems using multiple components may result in security by-pass. For example a component that enforces a black list may interpret the URIs differently from one that generates a response. At the very least, differential parsing may divulge implementation details.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2025-11143 is the potential bypass of URI-based security controls due to inconsistent URI parsing across components. This can lead to unauthorized access or actions if security mechanisms rely on URI validation or blacklisting. While the vulnerability does not directly compromise confidentiality or availability, it undermines the integrity of access controls and may expose implementation details that could aid attackers in crafting further attacks. Organizations using Jetty in complex, multi-component web architectures—such as microservices, API gateways, or layered security stacks—are at greater risk. The low CVSS score indicates limited immediate risk, but the subtlety of the issue means it could be exploited in targeted attacks or combined with other vulnerabilities. The absence of known exploits suggests limited current threat, but the vulnerability should be considered in risk assessments and mitigated proactively.

CWE-20Improper Input Validation (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #18OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Attack Surface Reduction
Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build "recognizers" for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of…
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
Architecture and Design · Implementation · Attack Surface Reduction
Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any…
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
SQL Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention in Java (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Buffer Overflow via Environment Variables (opens in a new tab)
Server Side Include (SSI) Injection (opens in a new tab)
Cross Zone Scripting (opens in a new tab)
Command Line Execution through SQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
Object Relational Mapping Injection (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

github.com/jetty/jetty.project/security/advisories/GHSA-wjpw-4j6x-6rwh (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 5 Mar 2026, 10:08 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-20

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats