VulnerabilityPublished 29 May 2025Updated 3 Nov 2025

CVE-2025-46701: Apache Tomcat · Improper Handling of Case Sensitivity

Affects Apache TomcatSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.3 High · fixed in 11.0.7 : patch Apache Tomcat soon.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.3High

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

EPSS: 3.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 87% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 11.0.7

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 29 May 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Mavenorg.apache.tomcat/tomcat-catalina`pkg:maven/org.apache.tomcat/tomcat-catalina`Other threats	Affected 8.5.0 <=8.5.100 – 11.0.0-M1 <=11.0.6 4 affected builds	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

Immediately upgrade Apache Tomcat to the fixed versions: 11.0.7, 10.1.41, or 9.0.105 depending on your deployment.
Audit all web applications using the CGI servlet to identify usage of pathInfo components and verify that security constraints are correctly enforced post-upgrade.
Implement strict access controls and input validation on URIs, particularly focusing on case sensitivity handling in web server and application configurations.
Employ Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) with rules designed to detect and block suspicious URI manipulations that exploit case sensitivity issues.
Monitor logs for unusual access patterns or attempts to bypass security constraints via case variations in URLs.
For legacy systems that cannot be immediately upgraded, consider disabling the CGI servlet if not required or restricting its usage to trusted networks.
Conduct penetration testing focused on URI manipulation to ensure that security constraints cannot be bypassed.
Maintain an incident response plan to quickly address any exploitation attempts.
Stay informed about any emerging exploits or patches related to this vulnerability.

Description

Improper Handling of Case Sensitivity vulnerability in Apache Tomcat's GCI servlet allows security constraint bypass of security constraints that apply to the pathInfo component of a URI mapped to the CGI servlet. This issue affects Apache Tomcat: from 11.0.0-M1 through 11.0.6, from 10.1.0-M1 through 10.1.40, from 9.0.0.M1 through 9.0.104. The following versions were EOL at the time the CVE was created but are known to be affected: 8.5.0 though 8.5.100. Other, older, EOL versions may also be affected. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 11.0.7, 10.1.41 or 9.0.105, which fixes the issue.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2025-46701 can be significant due to the widespread use of Apache Tomcat in enterprise web applications, government portals, and critical infrastructure services. Exploitation could lead to unauthorized access to sensitive data, bypass of authentication and authorization controls, and potential disruption of services. This could result in data breaches, regulatory non-compliance (e.g., GDPR violations), reputational damage, and operational downtime. Sectors such as finance, healthcare, public administration, and telecommunications are particularly at risk given their reliance on web applications hosted on Tomcat servers. The vulnerability’s ability to bypass security constraints without authentication increases the risk profile, making it easier for attackers to gain footholds in networks. Additionally, the flaw affects multiple major Tomcat branches, increasing the attack surface across diverse deployments. The absence of known exploits currently provides a window for proactive mitigation, but the high severity score and ease of exploitation necessitate urgent action.

CWE-178Improper Handling of Case Sensitivity (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product does not properly account for differences in case sensitivity when accessing or determining the properties of a resource, leading to inconsistent results.
Architecture and Design · Input Validation
Avoid making decisions based on names of resources (e.g. files) if those resources can have alternate names.
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.
Implementation · Input Validation
Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174).
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 6 Nov 2025, 01:44 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-178

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats