VulnerabilityPublished 20 Nov 2025

CVE-2025-13435: Dreampie Resty · Path Traversal

Affects Dreampie RestySource CVE Database V5

Public exploit available · CVSS 6.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 10:12 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

6.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.7% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 56% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Base metrics

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low
Vulnerable system integrity: Low
Vulnerable system availability: Low
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: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
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: 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 to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the Vulnerable System are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to 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 20 Nov 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: evidence found.
CVSS exploit maturity: proof of concept public
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), CVSS vector, the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 26 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.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, 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
Mavencn.dreampie/resty`pkg:maven/cn.dreampie/resty`Other threats	Affected–	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

Given the lack of official patches, European organizations should implement immediate compensating controls. First, enforce strict input validation and sanitization on all filename or path parameters used by Dreampie Resty to prevent path traversal sequences such as '../'. Implement allowlisting of acceptable file paths and deny any input that attempts to navigate outside designated directories. Employ runtime application self-protection (RASP) or web application firewalls (WAFs) configured to detect and block path traversal patterns in HTTP requests. Restrict file system permissions for the application to the minimum necessary, ensuring it cannot access sensitive directories or files even if path traversal is attempted. Conduct thorough code reviews and consider upgrading or replacing Dreampie Resty with alternative HTTP clients that do not exhibit this vulnerability. Monitor logs for anomalous access patterns or errors indicative of exploitation attempts. Finally, maintain an incident response plan to quickly address any detected exploitation and notify relevant data protection authorities if sensitive data exposure occurs.

Description

A security vulnerability has been detected in Dreampie Resty up to 1.3.1.SNAPSHOT. This affects the function Request of the file /resty-httpclient/src/main/java/cn/dreampie/client/HttpClient.java of the component HttpClient Module. Such manipulation of the argument filename leads to path traversal. The attack may be performed from remote. Attacks of this nature are highly complex. The exploitability is reported as difficult. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Impact

For European organizations, the primary impact of CVE-2025-13435 is the potential unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information stored on servers running vulnerable versions of Dreampie Resty. This can lead to data breaches, intellectual property theft, and exposure of credentials or internal configuration files, which may facilitate further attacks. Organizations relying on Dreampie Resty for web services, API clients, or internal tooling are at risk. The medium severity score reflects moderate risk, but the absence of patches and vendor support increases exposure. Regulatory frameworks such as GDPR impose strict data protection requirements, so data leaks resulting from exploitation could lead to significant legal and financial consequences. The complexity of exploitation reduces the likelihood of widespread automated attacks but does not eliminate targeted attacks against high-value entities. Additionally, the vulnerability could be leveraged as a foothold for lateral movement or privilege escalation if sensitive files contain credentials or secrets. Overall, the threat poses a tangible risk to confidentiality and operational security in affected environments.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…