VulnerabilityPublished 8 Jan 2026

CVE-2025-66916: RuoYi-Vue-Plus · Code Injection

Affects RuoYi-Vue-PlusSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.4 Critical.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

9.4Critical

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.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
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: 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: 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 8 Jan 2026
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
GitHubdromara/RuoYi-Vue-Plus`pkg:github/dromara/RuoYi-Vue-Plus`Other threats	Affected <=5.5.1	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2025-66916, organizations should immediately implement strict input validation and sanitization on all QLExpress expressions processed by the snailjob component, particularly within the /snail-job/workflow/check-node-expression interface. Restrict or disable the use of sensitive classes such as File within QLExpress scripts to prevent unauthorized file system access. Monitor and log all usage of the vulnerable interface to detect anomalous or suspicious expression executions. Apply any available patches or updates from the RuoYi-Vue-Plus maintainers as soon as they are released. If patches are not yet available, consider temporarily disabling or restricting access to the vulnerable endpoint, especially from untrusted networks. Employ web application firewalls (WAFs) with custom rules to block malicious payloads targeting QLExpress injection. Conduct thorough code reviews and security testing of workflow automation components to identify similar injection risks. Educate development and security teams about the risks of executing untrusted expressions and enforce the principle of least privilege in application design. Finally, maintain regular backups and incident response plans to quickly recover from potential exploitation.

Description

The snailjob component in RuoYi-Vue-Plus versions 5.5.1 and earlier, interface /snail-job/workflow/check-node-expression can execute QLExpress expressions, but it does not filter user input, allowing attackers to use the File class to perform arbitrary file reading and writing.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2025-66916 can be substantial. The arbitrary file read/write capability can lead to exposure of confidential business data, intellectual property, and personal data protected under GDPR, resulting in regulatory penalties and reputational damage. Attackers could modify configuration files or inject malicious code, potentially leading to system downtime or full compromise of enterprise applications. This could disrupt critical business operations, especially in sectors like finance, healthcare, and manufacturing where RuoYi-Vue-Plus might be used for internal process automation. The vulnerability’s ease of exploitation without authentication increases the likelihood of targeted attacks or opportunistic scanning by cybercriminals. Additionally, the breach of data confidentiality could trigger compliance violations under European data protection laws. The threat also extends to supply chain risks if compromised systems are integrated with other enterprise platforms. Overall, the vulnerability threatens operational continuity, data security, and regulatory compliance for European entities using the affected software.

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 8 Jan 2026, 19:54 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-94

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats