CVE-2025-51742VulnerabilityPublished 25 Nov 2025Updated 26 Nov 2025

CVE-2025-51742: JSH_ERP · n/a

Affects JSH_ERPSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.8 Critical.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 07:57 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

9.8Critical

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 40% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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: 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: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Availability: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 25 Nov 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 2026-10-26.

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
GitHubjishenghua/JSH_ERP`pkg:github/jishenghua/JSH_ERP`Other threats	Affected =2.3.1	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

1. Immediate input validation and sanitization: Implement strict validation on the /material/getMaterialEnableSerialNumberList endpoint to reject or sanitize any suspicious or unexpected input before it reaches Fastjson's parseObject(). 2. Disable or replace Fastjson deserialization: Where possible, disable the use of Fastjson for deserializing untrusted input or replace it with safer JSON parsing libraries that do not support polymorphic deserialization. 3. Apply runtime protections: Use application-layer firewalls or runtime application self-protection (RASP) tools to detect and block malicious deserialization payloads targeting this endpoint. 4. Network segmentation and least privilege: Restrict network access to the ERP system and ensure that the application runs with minimal privileges to limit the impact of potential exploitation. 5. Monitor logs and alerts: Set up monitoring for unusual activity, such as unexpected JDBC calls or anomalous API requests to the vulnerable endpoint. 6. Vendor engagement: Engage with jishenghua or ERP vendors for patches or official mitigations and apply updates as soon as they become available. 7. Incident response readiness: Prepare incident response plans specific to deserialization attacks and RCE scenarios to enable rapid containment and recovery.

Description

An issue was discovered in jishenghua JSH_ERP 2.3.1. The /material/getMaterialEnableSerialNumberList endpoint passes the search query parameter directly to parseObject(), introducing a Fastjson deserialization vulnerability that can lead to RCE via JDBC payloads.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a severe risk, especially those using jishenghua JSH_ERP or similar ERP solutions that incorporate Fastjson for JSON parsing. Successful exploitation can lead to complete system takeover, data breaches involving sensitive business and customer information, disruption of critical business operations, and potential lateral movement within corporate networks. The ability to execute arbitrary code remotely without authentication means attackers can deploy ransomware, steal intellectual property, or sabotage supply chains. Given the ERP system's role in managing materials and serial numbers, attackers could manipulate inventory data, causing financial losses and operational chaos. The lack of known exploits currently provides a window for proactive defense, but the high severity demands immediate attention. European companies in manufacturing, logistics, and supply chain sectors using Chinese or third-party ERP products are particularly at risk. Additionally, regulatory compliance frameworks such as GDPR impose strict data protection requirements, and breaches stemming from this vulnerability could result in significant fines and reputational damage.

CWE-502Deserialization of Untrusted Data (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumCWE Top 25 (2025): #15OWASP Top 10 A08:2025: Software or Data Integrity Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product deserializes untrusted data without sufficiently ensuring that the resulting data will be valid.
Architecture and Design · Implementation
If available, use the signing/sealing features of the programming language to assure that deserialized data has not been tainted. For example, a hash-based message authentication code (HMAC) could be used to ensure that data has not been modified.
Implementation
When deserializing data, populate a new object rather than just deserializing. The result is that the data flows through safe input validation and that the functions are safe.
Implementation
Explicitly define a final object() to prevent deserialization.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
XML External Entity Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Software Supply Chain Security (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.5.2 (opens in a new tab)
V5.5.3 (opens in a new tab)
V5.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Object 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 2 Dec 2025, 20:46 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-502

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats