CVE-2025-15117VulnerabilityPublished 28 Dec 2025Updated 29 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-15117: Dromara Sa-Token · Deserialization

Affects Dromara Sa-TokenSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 2.3 Low.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 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 25% 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:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X

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

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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 28 Dec 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 2026-10-26.

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
Mavencn.dev33/sa-token`pkg:maven/cn.dev33/sa-token`Other threats	Affected =1.0 =1.1 =1.2 =1.3 =1.4 =1.5 =1.6 =1.7 =1.8 =1.9 =1.10 =1.11 =1.12 =1.13 =1.14 =1.15 =1.16 =1.17 =1.18 =1.19 =1.20 =1.21 =1.22 =1.23 =1.24 =1.25 =1.26 =1.27 =1.28 =1.29 =1.30 =1.31 =1.32 =1.33 =1.34 =1.35 =1.36 =1.37 =1.38 =1.39 =1.40 =1.41 =1.42 =1.43 =1.44.0	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

1. Immediately audit all applications using Sa-Token to identify usage of the vulnerable versions (up to 1.44.0). 2. Avoid accepting or processing untrusted serialized data; implement strict input validation and sanitization on all serialized inputs. 3. Where possible, disable Java deserialization or replace ObjectInputStream.readObject with safer serialization frameworks that enforce type whitelisting or use JSON/XML serialization. 4. Employ runtime application self-protection (RASP) or Web Application Firewalls (WAF) to detect and block suspicious serialized payloads. 5. Monitor application logs for anomalies related to deserialization errors or unexpected object instantiations. 6. Isolate services using Sa-Token in segmented network zones to limit lateral movement if exploited. 7. Engage with the vendor or community for updates or patches and apply them promptly once available. 8. Conduct security code reviews focusing on serialization/deserialization logic to identify and remediate unsafe patterns. 9. Educate developers on secure deserialization best practices and the risks associated with Java serialization. 10. Prepare incident response plans for potential exploitation scenarios involving deserialization attacks.

Description

A weakness has been identified in Dromara Sa-Token up to 1.44.0. This affects the function ObjectInputStream.readObject of the file SaJdkSerializer.java. Executing manipulation can lead to deserialization. The attack may be launched remotely. This attack is characterized by high complexity. It is indicated that the exploitability is difficult. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2025-15117 is currently low but should not be ignored. Organizations relying on Sa-Token for authentication or session management could face risks if attackers manage to exploit the deserialization flaw, potentially leading to unauthorized code execution or denial of service. Although the current exploitability is difficult and no known exploits exist, the remote attack vector means that exposed services accepting serialized input could be targeted. This could affect web applications, microservices, or APIs using Sa-Token, especially in sectors with high security requirements such as finance, healthcare, and government. The lack of vendor response and patches increases the risk window. Additionally, if attackers develop reliable exploits, the impact could escalate rapidly. European organizations with compliance obligations under GDPR must consider the risk of data breaches or service disruptions resulting from exploitation. The vulnerability's low CVSS score reflects limited immediate risk but does not preclude future exploitation or chaining with other vulnerabilities to increase impact.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 30 Dec 2025, 23:33 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats