VulnerabilityPublished 24 Jul 2025Updated 31 Jul 2025

CVE-2025-8107: OB OceanBase Server · Resource Exposure

Affects OB OceanBase ServerSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.3 Medium : upgrade to 4.3.0 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 12:29 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 31% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 4.3.0

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 24 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 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

Upgrade oceanbase/oceanbase to 4.3.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHuboceanbase/oceanbase`pkg:github/oceanbase/oceanbase`Other threats	Affected =3.2.4 =4.2.1 >=4.2.0 <4.3.0 =4.3.3	Fixed in 4.3.0

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

AI-suggested

European organizations should implement the following specific mitigation strategies: 1) Conduct an immediate inventory to identify OceanBase Server deployments running Oracle tenant mode, focusing on the affected versions (3.2.4.x, 4.2.1.x, 4.2.x, 4.3.3.x). 2) Restrict and audit privileges rigorously to ensure that only trusted users have the specific privileges that could be leveraged for escalation. 3) Monitor database logs and commands for unusual or unauthorized administrative activities that could indicate exploitation attempts. 5) Implement network segmentation and access controls to limit exposure of OceanBase servers to only necessary internal systems and trusted users. 6) Employ multi-factor authentication and strong credential management to reduce the risk of privilege misuse. 7) Prepare incident response plans specifically addressing potential database privilege escalations. These steps go beyond generic advice by focusing on privilege management, monitoring, and vendor engagement tailored to OceanBase Oracle mode environments.

Description

In OceanBase's Oracle tenant mode, a malicious user with specific privileges can achieve privilege escalation to SYS-level access by executing carefully crafted commands. This vulnerability only affects OceanBase tenants in Oracle mode. Tenants in MySQL mode are unaffected.

Impact

For European organizations utilizing OceanBase Server in Oracle tenant mode, this vulnerability poses a significant risk. Successful exploitation could allow an attacker with limited privileges to escalate to SYS-level access, effectively gaining full control over the database environment. This could lead to unauthorized data access, modification, or deletion, impacting data confidentiality and integrity. Additionally, the attacker could disrupt database availability by executing administrative commands. Given the critical role databases play in enterprise operations, such an incident could result in operational downtime, regulatory non-compliance (especially under GDPR), financial losses, and reputational damage. Organizations in sectors such as finance, telecommunications, and government, which often deploy OceanBase for high-availability and high-performance database needs, are particularly at risk. The fact that exploitation requires some level of privilege reduces the risk from external attackers without credentials but increases the threat from insider threats or compromised accounts.

CWE-668Exposure of Resource to Wrong Sphere (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessOWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product exposes a resource to the wrong control sphere, providing unintended actors with inappropriate access to the resource.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-269Improper Privilege Management (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product does not properly assign, modify, track, or check privileges for an actor, creating an unintended sphere of control for that actor.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Operation
Very carefully manage the setting, management, and handling of privileges. Explicitly manage trust zones in the software.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Follow the principle of least privilege when assigning access rights to entities in a software system.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Consider following the principle of separation of privilege. Require multiple conditions to be met before permitting access to a system resource.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Docker Security (opens in a new tab)
Third Party Javascript Management (opens in a new tab)
Virtual Patching (opens in a new tab)
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.4.4 (opens in a new tab)
V1.4.5 (opens in a new tab)
V1.10.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Restful Privilege Elevation (opens in a new tab)
Privilege Abuse (opens in a new tab)
Privilege Escalation (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

github.com/oceanbase/oceanbase/security (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 1 Aug 2025, 00:45 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-668, CWE-269

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats