Jena SdbApplication · Apache
CVE-2022-45136
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 · uneditedApache Jena SDB 3.17.0 and earlier is vulnerable to a JDBC Deserialisation attack if the attacker is able to control the JDBC URL used or cause the underlying database server to return malicious data. The mySQL JDBC driver in particular is known to be vulnerable to this class of attack. As a result an application using Apache Jena SDB can be subject to RCE when connected to a malicious database server. Apache Jena SDB has been EOL since December 2020 and users should migrate to alternative options e.g. Apache Jena TDB 2.
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 confidenceApache Jena SDB 3.17.0 and earlier contains a JDBC deserialization vulnerability where an attacker who controls the JDBC URL or causes a malicious database server to return crafted data can trigger deserialization of untrusted data, leading to remote code execution (RCE). The MySQL JDBC driver is specifically identified as vulnerable to this class of attack.
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
Jena SdbApplication
<= 3.17.0CVSS 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
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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.
-
Locate Apache Jena SDB installationSearch for sdb-*.jar files in the application lib directories, classpath, or WAR/EAR archives. Check pom.xml or build.gradle for org.apache.jena:jena-sdb dependencies.Affected if Apache Jena SDB jar files are present in the environment
-
Determine SDB versionInspect the SDB jar filename or examine the MANIFEST.MF file inside the jar for the Implementation-Version attribute. Compare against the affected version 3.17.0 or earlier.Affected if The installed SDB version is 3.17.0 or lower
-
Check for MySQL JDBC driverSearch for mysql-connector-java-*.jar or similar MySQL JDBC driver files in the classpath, lib directories, or application archives.Affected if MySQL JDBC driver is present alongside SDB, enabling the specific attack vector
-
Identify SDB configuration filesSearch for .ttl or .rdf configuration files containing @prefix sdb: and sdb:dbc or sdb:connectionPool settings. These define database connections for SDB.Affected if SDB configuration files with database connection settings exist in the application
-
Inspect JDBC URL configurationExamine the SDB configuration files for jdbc:mysql: URLs or other JDBC connection strings. Check if the URL is dynamically constructed from user input or external parameters.Affected if JDBC URLs in SDB configuration can be influenced by untrusted input or connect to untrusted database servers
The environment is affected if Apache Jena SDB version 3.17.0 or earlier is installed and configured to use JDBC connections, particularly with the MySQL JDBC driver, where the JDBC URL or database server is not strictly controlled.
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 · scopedSince Apache Jena SDB reached end-of-life in December 2020 with no patches available, migrate to alternative solutions such as Apache Jena TDB 2. If immediate migration is not possible, strictly control JDBC URL parameters and validate database server identities to prevent attacker-controlled connections.
- 1. Apache Jena SDB has been End-of-Life since December 2020 and no longer receives security updates.
- 2. Migrate to Apache Jena TDB 2 as the official replacement per Apache Jena SDB's EOL notice.
- 3. If migration is not immediately possible, implement network-level controls to ensure database connections are only made to trusted, controlled database servers.
- 4. Avoid allowing untrusted users to control JDBC connection URLs in applications using Apache Jena SDB.
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Fix this in Jena Sdb
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation12.0 h
- Implementation60.0 h
- Testing24.0 h
- Review / QA8.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $29,184.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-45136 — 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-2022-45136 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