CVE-2025-0401
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 · uneditedA vulnerability classified as critical has been found in 1902756969 reggie 1.0. Affected is the function download of the file src/main/java/com/itheima/reggie/controller/CommonController.java. The manipulation of the argument name leads to path traversal. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used.
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 · moderate confidencePath traversal vulnerability in the download function of CommonController.java in reggie 1.0. The 'name' parameter is not properly validated, allowing attackers to manipulate file paths using '../' sequences to access arbitrary files outside the intended directory.
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= 1.0CVSS 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
- Low
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
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 if reggie application is installedLocate the reggie application installation directory or running service. Check for CommonController.java or its compiled class file in the web application source code.Affected if reggie version 1.0 is installed and CommonController.java with a download function exists
-
Verify the application versionCheck the application's version manifest, build file, or version information. Confirm the version is exactly 1.0.Affected if the installed version is 1.0
-
Locate the vulnerable download functionSearch for CommonController.java in the source code and identify the download method that accepts a 'name' parameter. Check if the parameter is processed without proper validation.Affected if the download function uses the 'name' parameter without input validation
-
Check if the download endpoint is exposedIdentify the web route mapped to the download function (typically through @RequestMapping annotations). Confirm the endpoint is accessible via HTTP/HTTPS.Affected if the download endpoint is accessible over the network
-
Determine if path traversal protection existsInspect the download function code for validation logic on the 'name' parameter. Look for path normalization, allowlist checks, or base directory comparison.Affected if no input validation or path normalization is performed on the 'name' parameter before file access
You are affected if you are running reggie version 1.0 and the download endpoint in CommonController.java with the 'name' parameter is accessible without proper path traversal validation.
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.
From vendor dataImplement strict input validation using a filename allowlist and validate that resolved file paths remain within an authorized base directory. Use canonical path resolution with Path.normalize() and compare against an allowed directory prefix.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,272.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-0401 — 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-2025-0401 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