VulnerabilityPublished 3 Jun 2025Updated 5 Jun 2025

CVE-2025-35036: Hibernate Validator · Code Injection

Affects Hibernate ValidatorSource CVE Database V5

Mentioned vulnerabilities

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.3 High : upgrade to 7.0.0 or 6.2.0 soon.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.3High

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

EPSS: 0.7% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 54% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 7.0.0, 6.2.0

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

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

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: 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: 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 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: 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 impacted component 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 impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 3 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 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

Upgrade org.hibernate.validator/hibernate-validator to 7.0.0 or 6.2.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Mavenorg.hibernate.validator/hibernate-validator`pkg:maven/org.hibernate.validator/hibernate-validator`Other threats	Affected <6.2.0 <7.0.0	Fixed in 6.2.0 7.0.0

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 assess their use of Hibernate Validator and identify affected versions prior to 6.2.0 and 7.0.0. The primary mitigation is to upgrade to Hibernate Validator version 6.2.0 or 7.0.0 or later, where the unsafe EL interpolation has been removed. Until upgrades can be applied, organizations should audit and sanitize all user inputs that may be included in constraint violation messages to prevent injection of malicious EL expressions. Implementing strict input validation and output encoding can reduce risk. Additionally, disabling or restricting Expression Language evaluation in validation messages, if configurable, is recommended. Organizations should monitor network traffic and logs for suspicious EL expressions or unusual error messages indicative of exploitation attempts. Employing runtime application self-protection (RASP) or web application firewalls (WAF) with custom rules to detect and block EL injection patterns can provide temporary defense. Finally, security teams should update incident response plans to include this vulnerability and educate developers about safe usage of validation frameworks.

Description

Hibernate Validator before 6.2.0 and 7.0.0, by default and depending how it is used, may interpolate user-supplied input in a constraint violation message with Expression Language. This could allow an attacker to access sensitive information or execute arbitrary Java code. Hibernate Validator as of 6.2.0 and 7.0.0 no longer interpolates custom constraint violation messages with Expression Language and strongly recommends not allowing user-supplied input in constraint violation messages. CVE-2020-5245 and CVE-2025-4428 are examples of related, downstream vulnerabilities involving Expression Language intepolation of user-supplied data.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2025-35036 can be significant, especially for those relying on Java-based enterprise applications using Hibernate Validator for input validation. Exploitation could lead to unauthorized access to sensitive personal data, intellectual property, or critical business information, violating GDPR and other data protection regulations. The ability to execute arbitrary code remotely can result in full system compromise, data exfiltration, ransomware deployment, or disruption of critical services. This poses a direct threat to sectors such as finance, healthcare, government, and telecommunications, which often use Java frameworks extensively. Additionally, the breach of confidentiality and integrity can damage organizational reputation and lead to regulatory fines. Since the vulnerability requires no authentication or user interaction, automated exploitation attempts could rapidly spread, increasing the risk of widespread incidents across European enterprises.

CWE-94Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumCWE Top 25 (2025): #10OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment.
Architecture and Design · Refactoring
Refactor your program so that you do not have to dynamically generate code.
Architecture and Design
Run your code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which code can be executed by your product.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Server Side Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Scripting Prevention (opens in a new tab)
DOM based XSS Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V5.2.8 (opens in a new tab)
V5.2.5 (opens in a new tab)
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Leverage Executable Code in Non-Executable Files (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating User-Controlled Variables (opens in a new tab)
Code Injection (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 11 Jul 2025, 03:02 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-94

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats