VulnerabilityPublished 17 Feb 2026Updated 29 Jul 2026

CVE-2025-66614: Tomcat8 · Improper Input Validation vulnerability

Affects tomcat8Source GCVE Database

Mentioned vulnerabilities

Authoritative record:CVE-2025-66614· High 7.6

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.6 High · fixed in 11.0.15 : patch tomcat8 soon.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 12:55 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.6High

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 19% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 11.0.15

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
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: 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: 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 17 Feb 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
Ubuntu 26.04 LTStomcat10`pkg:deb/ubuntu/tomcat10?arch=source&distro=resolute`Other threats	Affected =10.1.40-1ubuntu1 =10.1.40-1ubuntu1.26.04.1 =10.1.55-1ubuntu2~26.04.1	Fixed in–
Ubuntu 25.10tomcat10`pkg:deb/ubuntu/tomcat10?arch=source&distro=questing`Other threats	Affected 10.1.35-1 – 10.1.40-1ubuntu1.25.10.1 4 affected builds	Fixed in–
Ubuntu 25.10tomcat11`pkg:deb/ubuntu/tomcat11?arch=source&distro=questing`Other threats	Affected =11.0.6-1	Fixed in–
Ubuntu 25.10tomcat9`pkg:deb/ubuntu/tomcat9?arch=source&distro=questing`Other threats	Affected 9.0.70-2ubuntu1.1 – 9.0.95-1ubuntu1.1 5 affected builds	Fixed in–
Ubuntu 24.04 LTStomcat10`pkg:deb/ubuntu/tomcat10?arch=source&distro=noble`Other threats	Affected 10.1.10-1 – 10.1.55-1ubuntu2~24.04.1 9 affected builds	Fixed in–
Ubuntu 24.04 LTStomcat9`pkg:deb/ubuntu/tomcat9?arch=source&distro=noble`Other threats	Affected 9.0.70-1ubuntu1 – 9.0.118-1~24.04.1 7 affected builds	Fixed in–

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

Description

Improper Input Validation vulnerability. This issue affects Apache Tomcat: from 11.0.0-M1 through 11.0.14, from 10.1.0-M1 through 10.1.49, from 9.0.0-M1 through 9.0.112. The following versions were EOL at the time the CVE was created but are known to be affected: 8.5.0 through 8.5.100. Older EOL versions are not affected. Tomcat did not validate that the host name provided via the SNI extension was the same as the host name provided in the HTTP host header field. If Tomcat was configured with more than one virtual host and the TLS configuration for one of those hosts did not require client certificate authentication but another one did, it was possible for a client to bypass the client certificate authentication by sending different host names in the SNI extension and the HTTP host header field. The vulnerability only applies if client certificate authentication is only enforced at the Connector. It does not apply if client certificate authentication is enforced at the web application. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 11.0.15 or later, 10.1.50 or later or 9.0.113 or later, which fix the issue.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…