CVE-2021-29485
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedRatpack is a toolkit for creating web applications. In versions prior to 1.9.0, a malicious attacker can achieve Remote Code Execution (RCE) via a maliciously crafted Java deserialization gadget chain leveraged against the Ratpack session store. If one's application does not use Ratpack's session mechanism, it is not vulnerable. Ratpack 1.9.0 introduces a strict allow-list mechanism that mitigates this vulnerability when used. Two possible workarounds exist. The simplest mitigation for users of earlier versions is to reduce the likelihood of attackers being able to write to the session data store. Alternatively or additionally, the allow-list mechanism could be manually back ported by providing an alternative implementation of `SessionSerializer` that uses an allow-list.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceRatpack versions prior to 1.9.0 are vulnerable to Java deserialization attacks via the session store, allowing remote code execution through maliciously crafted gadget chains. The vulnerability is exploitable only when the application's session mechanism is in use. Version 1.9.0 introduces a strict allow-list for serialized classes, effectively blocking the attack vector.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data< 1.9.0CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify installed Ratpack versionCheck your project's dependency management file (such as build.gradle, pom.xml, or a similar dependency declaration) for the Ratpack library version, or run a dependency resolution command to list the loaded Ratpack version.Affected if The reported version is earlier than 1.9.0 (for example, 1.8.0, 1.7.0, etc.)
-
Confirm session mechanism is activeInspect your application configuration and code to determine whether session handling is enabled. Look for session store configuration, session persistence setup, or usage of Ratpack's Session API in the application code.Affected if The application's session mechanism is in use and the Ratpack version is below 1.9.0
-
Check for custom SessionSerializerReview your codebase for any custom implementation of SessionSerializer or similar session serialization configuration that may be in use.Affected if A custom SessionSerializer is implemented without an allow-list and the Ratpack version is vulnerable
-
Examine session data store exposureEvaluate whether the session data store (such as Redis, JDBC, or another session backend) is exposed to untrusted inputs or accessible to external attackers.Affected if The session store accepts untrusted serialized data from potentially malicious sources and the Ratpack version is below 1.9.0
You are affected if your Ratpack version is below 1.9.0 AND your application uses the session mechanism with a session store accessible to potentially malicious serialized data.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
dbcve · scoped1.9.0
Upgrade to Ratpack 1.9.0 or later to receive the built-in allow-list protection. If upgrading is not feasible, manually implement an allow-listed SessionSerializer or ensure the session data store is inaccessible to attackers.
Ratpack 1.9.0
- Locate your project's build configuration file (pom.xml for Maven or build.gradle for Gradle)
- Update the Ratpack dependency version from your current version to 1.9.0
- For Maven, change the version in the <version> tag to 1.9.0; for Gradle, update the version string to '1.9.0'
- Run your build tool to resolve the new dependency (e.g., mvn clean install or ./gradlew build)
- Verify your application still functions correctly, particularly any session-related functionality
- Test that session serialization/deserialization works as expected with the new allow-list mechanism
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2021-29485 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2021-29485 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data