VulnerabilityPublished 13 Mar 2026

CVE-2025-60012: Apache Livy · Improper Input Validation

Affects Apache LivySource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.3 Medium : upgrade to 0.9.0-incubating when convenient.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 42% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 0.9.0-incubating, 0.9.0

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
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: 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: 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 13 Mar 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: evidence found.
Public exploit code: GitHub proofs of concept
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), GitHub proofs of concept, the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 30 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.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), 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 Apache Livy and Apache Software Foundation/org.apache.livy:livy-server to 0.9.0-incubating; org.apache.livy/livy to 0.9.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Apache Software FoundationApache Livy	Affected >=0.7.0-incubating <0.9.0-incubating	Fixed in 0.9.0-incubating
Mavenorg.apache.livy/livy`pkg:maven/org.apache.livy/livy`Other threats	Affected <0.9.0	Fixed in 0.9.0
MavenApache Software Foundation/org.apache.livy:livy-server`pkg:maven/Apache Software Foundation/org.apache.livy:livy-server`Other threats	Affected >=0.7.0-incubating <0.9.0-incubating	Fixed in 0.9.0-incubating

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

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2025-60012, organizations should upgrade Apache Livy to version 0.9.0 or later, where the vulnerability is fixed. Until upgrade is possible, restrict access to Livy’s REST and JDBC interfaces to trusted users and networks only, using network segmentation, firewalls, and access controls. Implement strict authentication and authorization mechanisms to limit who can send Spark configuration parameters through Livy. Monitor Livy logs for unusual or unexpected configuration parameters in requests. Consider deploying Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) or API gateways that can detect and block suspicious payloads targeting configuration inputs. Regularly audit and review user permissions and interface exposure to minimize the attack surface. Additionally, ensure that sensitive files on the server have appropriate filesystem permissions to reduce the impact of unauthorized access. Finally, keep abreast of updates from Apache and apply security patches promptly.

Description

Malicious configuration can lead to unauthorized file access in Apache Livy. This issue affects Apache Livy 0.7.0 and 0.8.0 when connecting to Apache Spark 3.1 or later. A request that includes a Spark configuration value supported from Apache Spark version 3.1 can lead to users gaining access to files they do not have permissions to. For the vulnerability to be exploitable, the user needs to have access to Apache Livy's REST or JDBC interface and be able to send requests with arbitrary Spark configuration values. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 0.9.0 or later, which fixes the issue.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2025-60012 is unauthorized disclosure of sensitive files on servers running vulnerable Apache Livy versions. This can lead to exposure of confidential data, including credentials, configuration files, or other sensitive information stored on the server. Organizations relying on Apache Livy for Spark job submissions and management could face data breaches if attackers exploit this flaw. Since the vulnerability requires access to Livy’s REST or JDBC interfaces, the risk is higher in environments where these interfaces are exposed to untrusted networks or insufficiently restricted users. The breach of confidentiality could facilitate further attacks, including privilege escalation or lateral movement within the network. Additionally, unauthorized file access could violate compliance requirements and damage organizational reputation. The scope is limited to Livy instances connected to Spark 3.1 or later, but given the widespread adoption of Spark in big data environments, many organizations worldwide could be affected. The absence of known exploits reduces immediate risk, but the vulnerability should be treated as high priority due to the sensitive nature of data potentially exposed.

Summary

CVE-2025-60012 is a security vulnerability classified under CWE-20 (Improper Input Validation) affecting Apache Livy versions 0.7.0 and 0.8.0 when used in conjunction with Apache Spark version 3.1 or later. Apache Livy is a service that enables interaction with Apache Spark through REST and JDBC interfaces. The vulnerability stems from Livy accepting Spark configuration values from user requests without sufficient validation. Since Spark 3.1 introduced new configuration parameters, Livy’s failure to properly validate these inputs allows an attacker with access to Livy's REST or JDBC endpoints to supply malicious configuration values. These crafted values can cause Livy to access files on the server that the attacker is not authorized to read, leading to unauthorized file disclosure. The attack surface is limited to users who already have access to Livy's interfaces, but within that scope, the vulnerability can lead to significant confidentiality breaches. The issue has been addressed in Apache Livy 0.9.0 by implementing stricter validation and sanitization of Spark configuration inputs. No CVSS score has been assigned yet, and no public exploits have been observed. However, the vulnerability represents a serious risk to environments running vulnerable Livy versions connected to Spark 3.1 or newer.

CWE-20Improper Input Validation (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #18OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Attack Surface Reduction
Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build "recognizers" for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of…
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
Architecture and Design · Implementation · Attack Surface Reduction
Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any…
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
SQL Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention in Java (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Buffer Overflow via Environment Variables (opens in a new tab)
Server Side Include (SSI) Injection (opens in a new tab)
Cross Zone Scripting (opens in a new tab)
Command Line Execution through SQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
Object Relational Mapping 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 13 Mar 2026, 15:44 UTC

Public exploits and detectionGitHub proofs of concept

WeaknessesCWE-20

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats