CVE-2025-31651VulnerabilityPublished 8 Jan 2026Updated 27 Jun 2026

Red Hat Security Advisory: pki-servlet-engine security update

Affects Red Hat pki-servlet-engineSource GCVE Database

Mentioned vulnerabilities

CVE-2025-55752

Not known to be exploited.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 10:12 UTC

Severity

High

Rated by Threat Radar · No CVSS score from NVD or the CNA

EPSS: 4.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 90% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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
Red Hat Product Security Red Hat	Affected =9.0.50-1.el9_2.3	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Red Hat has released an official security update for the pki-servlet-engine package (version 9.0.50-1.el9_2.3) that addresses these vulnerabilities. Users of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.2 should apply this update promptly to remediate the issues. Detailed instructions for applying the update are available in the Red Hat advisory (RHSA-2026:0293) and related documentation at https://access.redhat.com/articles/11258. No additional mitigation steps are indicated by the vendor.

Description

This advisory addresses two security vulnerabilities in Apache Tomcat used within Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.2's pki-servlet-engine package. The first vulnerability (CVE-2025-31651) involves a bypass of rules in the Rewrite Valve component. The second (CVE-2025-55752) concerns a directory traversal vulnerability via rewrite rules that may lead to remote code execution. Red Hat has released an important security update to fix these issues in the pki-servlet-engine package version 9.0.50-1.el9_2.3. The update is available for multiple architectures and variants of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.2. No known exploits in the wild have been reported at this time.

Impact

Successful exploitation of CVE-2025-31651 could allow bypassing of rewrite rules in Apache Tomcat's Rewrite Valve, potentially enabling unauthorized request handling. CVE-2025-55752 could allow directory traversal via rewrite rules, which may lead to remote code execution on affected systems. These vulnerabilities pose a high security risk as they could compromise the integrity and security of applications running on the affected servlet engine. No known exploits in the wild have been reported so far.

CWE-150Improper Neutralization of Escape, Meta, or Control Sequences (opens in a new tab)
Variant weakness
The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could be interpreted as escape, meta, or control character sequences when they are sent to a downstream component.
Developers should anticipate that escape, meta and control characters/sequences will be injected/removed/manipulated in the input vectors of their product. Use an appropriate combination of denylists and allowlists to ensure only valid, expected and appropriate input is processed by the system.
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 · Output Encoding
While it is risky to use dynamically-generated query strings, code, or commands that mix control and data together, sometimes it may be unavoidable. Properly quote arguments and escape any special characters within those arguments.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
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)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Email Injection (opens in a new tab)
Using Meta-characters in E-mail Headers to Inject Malicious Payloads (opens in a new tab)
Web Server Logs Tampering (opens in a new tab)
Log Injection-Tampering-Forging (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-23Relative Path Traversal (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that should be within a restricted directory, but it does not properly neutralize sequences such as ".." that can resolve to a location that is outside of that directory.
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).
Operation · Firewall
Use an application firewall that can detect attacks against this weakness. It can be beneficial in cases in which the code cannot be fixed (because it is controlled by a third party), as an emergency prevention measure while more comprehensive software assurance measures are applied, or to provide defense in depth.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Relative Path Traversal (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls (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 28 Jun 2026, 01:04 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-150, CWE-23

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats