CVE-2025-27533
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 · uneditedMemory Allocation with Excessive Size Value vulnerability in Apache ActiveMQ. During unmarshalling of OpenWire commands the size value of buffers was not properly validated which could lead to excessive memory allocation and be exploited to cause a denial of service (DoS) by depleting process memory, thereby affecting applications and services that rely on the availability of the ActiveMQ broker when not using mutual TLS connections. This issue affects Apache ActiveMQ: from 6.0.0 before 6.1.6, from 5.18.0 before 5.18.7, from 5.17.0 before 5.17.7, before 5.16.8. ActiveMQ 5.19.0 is not affected. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 6.1.6+, 5.19.0+, 5.18.7+, 5.17.7, or 5.16.8 or which fixes the issue. Existing users may implement mutual TLS to mitigate the risk on affected brokers.
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 confidenceDuring unmarshalling of OpenWire commands in Apache ActiveMQ, the size value of buffers is not properly validated, allowing an attacker to trigger excessive memory allocation by sending specially crafted commands with oversized size values, leading to memory exhaustion and denial of service.
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>= 5.16.0, < 5.16.8>= 5.17.0, < 5.17.7>= 5.18.0, < 5.18.7>= 6.0.0, < 6.1.6CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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 ActiveMQ installation and versionRun 'activemq --version' or check the 'lib/activemq-boot.jar' or 'activemq-all.jar' version in the installation directory, or inspect the pom.xml if built from sourceAffected if The version falls within 5.16.0 to 5.16.7, 5.17.0 to 5.17.6, 5.18.0 to 5.18.6, or 6.0.0 to 6.1.5
-
Confirm OpenWire protocol is enabledCheck the ActiveMQ XML configuration file (typically conf/activemq.xml) for a transportConnector using the 'openwire' protocol, for example: <transportConnector name="openwire" uri="tcp://0.0.0.0:61616"/>Affected if An OpenWire transportConnector is defined and active, exposing port 61616 (or a custom OpenWire port)
-
Verify the broker is network-exposedReview the bind address in the OpenWire transportConnector URI; if set to 0.0.0.0 or a public IP, the broker is externally reachable; check firewall rules and network ACLs for port 61616 (or custom port)Affected if The OpenWire port is accessible from untrusted networks or the internet, allowing remote attackers to send malicious commands
You are affected if you run an ActiveMQ version within the affected ranges AND have OpenWire enabled and network-accessible to untrusted parties.
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 · scoped5.16.85.17.75.18.7
Upgrade to version 6.1.6+, 5.19.0+, 5.18.7+, 5.17.7+, or 5.16.8, or implement mutual TLS as a compensating control to mitigate the risk on affected brokers.
Upgrade to 6.1.6+ (for 6.x users), 5.18.7+ (for 5.18.x users), 5.17.7+ (for 5.17.x users), or 5.16.8+ (for 5.16.x users). The 5.19.0+ releases also contain the fix.
- 1. Identify the current ActiveMQ version by checking the installation directory or running the broker version command
- 2. For version 5.16.x: upgrade to version 5.16.8 or later (5.18.7+ or 5.19.0+ recommended for longer support)
- 3. For version 5.17.x: upgrade to version 5.17.7 or later (5.18.7+ or 5.19.0+ recommended for longer support)
- 4. For version 5.18.x: upgrade to version 5.18.7 or later
- 5. For version 6.0.x to 6.1.5: upgrade to version 6.1.6 or later
- 6. Download the appropriate release from the Apache ActiveMQ downloads page (activemq.apache.org)
- 7. Stop the ActiveMQ broker cleanly
- 8. Back up the existing ActiveMQ data directory and configuration files
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation10.0 h
- Testing16.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $9,792.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-27533 — 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-2025-27533 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