CVE-2025-32896VulnerabilityPublished 19 Jun 2025Updated 20 Jun 2025

CVE-2025-32896: Apache SeaTunnel · Missing Authentication

Affects Apache SeaTunnelSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium · fixed in 2.3.11 : update Apache SeaTunnel when convenient.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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

EPSS: 1.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 66% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2.3.11

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: None
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: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
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: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 19 Jun 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
Mavenorg.apache.seatunnel/seatunnel`pkg:maven/org.apache.seatunnel/seatunnel`Other threats	Affected <=2.3.10	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 this vulnerability, European organizations should immediately upgrade Apache SeaTunnel to version 2.3.11 or later, where the issue is fixed. Beyond upgrading, organizations should: 1) Disable or restrict access to the vulnerable RESTful API v1 endpoints, especially `/hazelcast/rest/maps/submit-job`, until the upgrade is applied. 2) Enforce network-level access controls such as firewall rules or VPNs to limit API access to trusted internal networks or authenticated users only. 3) Enable and configure RESTful API v2 with HTTPS two-way authentication as recommended by the vendor to ensure mutual authentication between clients and servers. 4) Conduct thorough audits of existing SeaTunnel deployments to identify any unauthorized job submissions or suspicious activity that may indicate exploitation attempts. 5) Implement runtime application self-protection (RASP) or web application firewalls (WAF) with custom rules to detect and block anomalous API requests targeting job submission endpoints. 6) Regularly monitor logs and alerts for unusual deserialization patterns or file access attempts. 7) Educate DevOps and security teams about secure configuration and the importance of applying vendor patches promptly. These steps go beyond generic patching advice by emphasizing access control, monitoring, and secure API usage.

Description

# Summary Unauthorized users can perform Arbitrary File Read and Deserialization attack by submit job using restful api-v1. # Details Unauthorized users can access `/hazelcast/rest/maps/submit-job` to submit job. An attacker can set extra params in mysql url to perform Arbitrary File Read and Deserialization attack. This issue affects Apache SeaTunnel: <=2.3.10 # Fixed Users are recommended to upgrade to version 2.3.11, and enable restful api-v2 & open https two-way authentication , which fixes the issue.

Impact

For European organizations using Apache SeaTunnel, especially those relying on versions 2.3.10 or earlier, this vulnerability poses a significant risk. The arbitrary file read capability can lead to exposure of sensitive corporate data, including database credentials, internal configuration files, or personally identifiable information (PII), potentially violating GDPR and other data protection regulations. Deserialization attacks could allow attackers to execute arbitrary code on the affected servers, leading to full system compromise, lateral movement within networks, and disruption of critical data processing workflows. This could impact sectors such as finance, telecommunications, manufacturing, and public services that utilize Apache SeaTunnel for data integration and analytics. The lack of authentication means that any exposed API endpoint is vulnerable to remote exploitation, increasing the attack surface. Additionally, the breach of confidentiality and integrity of data processed by SeaTunnel could undermine trust and lead to regulatory penalties. The availability of services may also be affected if attackers leverage this vulnerability to disrupt or manipulate data pipelines. Given the increasing reliance on data-driven decision-making in European enterprises, the operational and reputational impact could be substantial.

CWE-306Missing Authentication for Critical Function (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #21OWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product does not perform any authentication for functionality that requires a provable user identity or consumes a significant amount of resources.
Architecture and Design
Divide the software into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Identify which of these areas require a proven user identity, and use a centralized authentication capability.
Architecture and Design
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks…
Architecture and Design
Where possible, avoid implementing custom, "grow-your-own" authentication routines and consider using authentication capabilities as provided by the surrounding framework, operating system, or environment.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.2.3 (opens in a new tab)
V1.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
V1.2.4 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Choosing Message Identifier (opens in a new tab)
Force the System to Reset Values (opens in a new tab)
Using Unpublished Interfaces or Functionality (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Request Forgery (opens in a new tab)
Communication Channel Manipulation (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 19 Jun 2025, 11:01 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-306

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats