CVE-2025-40718VulnerabilityPublished 8 Jul 2025Updated 10 Jul 2025

CVE-2025-40718: Quiter Gateway (Java WAR on Apache Tomcat) · Generation of Error Message Containing Sensitive Information

Affects Quiter Gateway (Java WAR on Apache Tomcat)Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.9 Medium : upgrade to 4.7.0 when convenient.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

6.9Medium

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 36% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 4.7.0

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low
Vulnerable system integrity: None
Vulnerable system availability: None
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: Low: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
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: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within 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 8 Jul 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

Upgrade quiter/quiter-gateway to 4.7.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Mavenquiter/quiter-gateway`pkg:maven/quiter/quiter-gateway`Other threats	Affected <4.7.0	Fixed in 4.7.0

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 prioritize upgrading Quiter Gateway to version 4.7.0 or later once available, as this version presumably contains the necessary fixes. In the absence of an immediate patch, organizations should implement web application firewall (WAF) rules to detect and block malformed payloads targeting the error handling routines of Quiter Gateway. Additionally, configuring Apache Tomcat and the Java application to suppress detailed error messages and stack traces from being sent to clients can reduce information leakage. Logging detailed errors internally while presenting generic error messages externally is recommended. Security teams should conduct thorough code reviews and penetration tests focusing on error handling paths to identify and remediate similar issues. Network segmentation and strict access controls around the Quiter Gateway servers can limit exposure. Monitoring logs for unusual requests that trigger error messages can help detect exploitation attempts early. Finally, organizations should ensure that incident response plans include procedures for handling information disclosure vulnerabilities.

Description

Improper error handling vulnerability in versions prior to 4.7.0 of Quiter Gateway by Quiter. This vulnerability allows an attacker to send malformed payloads to generate error messages containing sensitive information.

Impact

For European organizations using Quiter Gateway versions prior to 4.7.0, this vulnerability poses a risk of sensitive information leakage. Disclosure of internal error details can aid attackers in reconnaissance, enabling them to identify system configurations, software versions, or other exploitable weaknesses. This can lead to more sophisticated attacks such as privilege escalation, code injection, or lateral movement within networks. Organizations in sectors with high regulatory requirements for data protection, such as finance, healthcare, and critical infrastructure, may face compliance risks if sensitive data is exposed. Additionally, the exposure of internal system details could undermine trust in the affected services and lead to reputational damage. Since the vulnerability does not require authentication or user interaction, it can be exploited by remote attackers without prior access, increasing the threat surface. However, the absence of known exploits in the wild and the medium CVSS score suggest that while impactful, the threat is not currently widespread or critical but should be addressed promptly to prevent escalation.

CWE-209Generation of Error Message Containing Sensitive Information (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A10:2025: Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions (opens in a new tab)
The product generates an error message that includes sensitive information about its environment, users, or associated data.
Implementation
Ensure that error messages only contain minimal details that are useful to the intended audience and no one else. The messages need to strike the balance between being too cryptic (which can confuse users) or being too detailed (which may reveal more than intended).
Implementation
Handle exceptions internally and do not display errors containing potentially sensitive information to a user.
Implementation · Attack Surface Reduction
Use naming conventions and strong types to make it easier to spot when sensitive data is being used. When creating structures, objects, or other complex entities, separate the sensitive and non-sensitive data as much as possible.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Error Handling (opens in a new tab)
Logging (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.4 (opens in a new tab)
V14.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
V7.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Fuzzing for application mapping (opens in a new tab)
Padding Oracle Crypto Attack (opens in a new tab)
Query System for Information (opens in a new tab)
Blind SQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

incibe.es/en/incibe-cert/notices/aviso/multiple-vulnerabilities-quiterweb-autoweb-quiter (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 15 Jul 2025, 21:42 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-209

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats