CVE-2025-15222VulnerabilityPublished 30 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-15222: Dromara Sa-Token · Deserialization

Affects Dromara Sa-TokenSource 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: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 17% 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:L/VA:L/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: 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: 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: 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 30 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 2026-10-25.

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
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

European organizations should immediately audit their environments for Sa-Token usage, especially versions up to 1.44.0. If Sa-Token is in use, consider the following mitigations: 1) Implement strict input validation and sanitization on any serialized data inputs to prevent malicious payloads. 2) Restrict network exposure of services using Sa-Token to trusted internal networks or VPNs to reduce remote attack surface. 3) Employ runtime application self-protection (RASP) or Web Application Firewalls (WAF) with custom rules to detect and block suspicious deserialization patterns. 4) Monitor logs for unusual deserialization activity or errors related to ObjectInputStream.readObject. 5) Where possible, replace Java native serialization with safer alternatives such as JSON or protocol buffers. 6) Engage with the Dromara community or maintainers to track any forthcoming patches or updates. 7) Conduct penetration testing focused on deserialization attacks to identify exploitable vectors. 8) Apply the principle of least privilege to limit the impact of potential exploitation. These steps go beyond generic advice by focusing on network segmentation, monitoring, and alternative serialization methods.

Description

A vulnerability has been found in Dromara Sa-Token up to 1.44.0. This issue affects the function ObjectInputStream.readObject of the file SaSerializerTemplateForJdkUseBase64.java. Such manipulation leads to deserialization. The attack can be executed remotely. This attack is characterized by high complexity. The exploitability is assessed as difficult. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of this vulnerability depends on the extent of Sa-Token usage within their Java-based authentication or session management systems. Successful exploitation could allow attackers to manipulate session tokens or authentication states, potentially leading to unauthorized access or privilege escalation. However, the high complexity and low CVSS score suggest limited immediate risk. Still, organizations in sectors with high security requirements—such as finance, healthcare, and critical infrastructure—could face reputational damage, data breaches, or service disruptions if exploited. The lack of vendor response and patch availability increases the risk exposure period. Additionally, organizations relying on third-party software that integrates Sa-Token may be indirectly affected. Given the remote attack vector, internet-facing applications using Sa-Token are at higher risk. The vulnerability's low impact rating reflects limited confidentiality, integrity, and availability loss, but the potential for chained attacks or exploitation in complex environments should not be underestimated.

Summary

CVE-2025-15222 identifies a deserialization vulnerability in the Dromara Sa-Token library, specifically in the ObjectInputStream.readObject method within the SaSerializerTemplateForJdkUseBase64.java file. This vulnerability arises from unsafe deserialization of Base64-encoded Java objects, which can be manipulated by an attacker to execute arbitrary code or cause denial of service if crafted maliciously. The vulnerability affects all versions of Sa-Token up to and including 1.44.0. Exploitation is remote and does not require user interaction, but it has high complexity, making it difficult to exploit successfully. The attacker needs low privileges, indicating that some level of access to the system or application is necessary. The CVSS 4.0 vector indicates network attack vector, high attack complexity, no privileges required, no user interaction, and low impact on confidentiality, integrity, and availability. Despite the low CVSS score, the vulnerability is significant because deserialization flaws can lead to severe consequences if exploited. The public disclosure increases the risk of future exploitation, although no known exploits are currently active in the wild.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 30 Dec 2025, 22:49 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats