Vert.xApplication · Eclipse

CVE-2025-11965

HIGH · 7.5 CVSS v3.1 Published 2025-10-22
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to 4.5.22 / 5.0.5 or later.
See remediation →
84/100
Remediation priority · High
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
In Eclipse Vert.x versions [4.0.0, 4.5.21] and [5.0.0, 5.0.4], a StaticHandler configuration for restricting access to hidden files fails to restrict access to hidden directories, allowing unauthorized users to retrieve files within them (e.g. '.git/config').

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 confidence

Eclipse Vert.x StaticHandler, intended to block access to hidden files (files starting with '.'), fails to restrict access to hidden directories. This allows attackers to traverse to sensitive files within hidden directories like .git/config, .env, or .aws/credentials.

MitigationUpgrade Vert.x to version 4.5.22 or 5.0.5 or later where the StaticHandler properly blocks access to hidden directories. Alternatively, configure reverse proxy rules to deny access to paths starting with '.'.

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
Vert.xApplication
Affected:>= 4.0.0, < 4.5.22>= 5.0.0, < 5.0.5

CVSS 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
None
Availability
None

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

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify Vert.x version in use
    Inspect your project's dependency management file (e.g., pom.xml, build.gradle, package.json) or the vertx-core JAR to find the Eclipse Vert.x version number
    Affected if The version falls within >= 4.0.0 and < 4.5.22, OR >= 5.0.0 and < 5.0.5
  2. Locate StaticHandler usage in code
    Search your codebase for imports and instantiation of io.vertx.ext.web.staticfiles.StaticHandler or calls to Router.router with static file handling methods (e.g., router.route().handler(StaticHandler.create(...)))
    Affected if StaticHandler is configured to serve static files from your application
  3. Verify static resource location
    Examine the StaticHandler configuration to identify the webRoot, rootPath, or directory serving location - check what directory is being exposed as static content
    Affected if Static files are served from a directory that may contain hidden subdirectories (e.g., .git, .env, .aws) that could be accessed via path traversal
  4. Confirm hidden file blocking is enabled
    Check StaticHandler configuration for the default blocking behavior; the vulnerability exists even when the blocking of hidden files (files starting with '.') is intended to be enabled - no special config needed to be vulnerable, the flaw is in the implementation
    Affected if StaticHandler is actively serving static content; the vulnerability exists in the implementation regardless of specific configuration options

You are affected if your application runs a Vert.x version in the affected ranges and uses StaticHandler to serve static files from a location that could contain accessible hidden directories.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 · scoped
Upgrade available Upgrade to 4.5.22 / 5.0.5 or later
Fixed in 4.5.225.0.5
Interim mitigation

Upgrade Vert.x to version 4.5.22 or 5.0.5 or later where the StaticHandler properly blocks access to hidden directories. Alternatively, configure reverse proxy rules to deny access to paths starting with '.'.

Recommended fix High confidence

Vert.x 4.x -> 4.5.22; Vert.x 5.x -> 5.0.5 (or latest stable in each major version)

  1. For Vert.x 4.x users: Upgrade to version 4.5.22 or later
  2. For Vert.x 5.x users: Upgrade to version 5.0.5 or later
  3. After upgrading, verify that StaticHandler now correctly restricts access to hidden directories (those starting with '.')
  4. Test that files within hidden directories (e.g., .git/config) are no longer accessible via StaticHandler

Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.

Fix this in Vert.x Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation4.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
11.0 hours of engineering $1,930
Get the upgrade done

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,088.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-11965 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2025-11965 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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