CVE-2025-4333
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 was found in feng_ha_ha/megagao ssm-erp and production_ssm up to 0.0.1. It has been classified as critical. This affects the function uploadFile of the file src/main/java/com/megagao/production/ssm/service/impl/FileServiceImpl.java. The manipulation of the argument uploadFile leads to unrestricted upload. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. This product is distributed under two entirely different names.
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 confidenceAn unrestricted file upload vulnerability exists in the uploadFile function of FileServiceImpl.java in the megagao ssm-erp system (versions up to 0.0.1). The function lacks proper validation of uploaded file types, content, and filenames, allowing remote attackers to upload malicious files (such as webshells) to the server.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
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 megagao ssm-erp is deployedSearch for FileServiceImpl.java in the deployed application codebase or check for the megagao ssm-erp application artifactAffected if The application contains the megagao ssm-erp system code
-
Determine the installed versionCheck the project version in pom.xml, build.gradle, or the deployed WAR/JAR manifest fileAffected if The version is 0.0.1 or any earlier version (the system is affected up to 0.0.1)
-
Verify the upload endpoint exists and is accessibleLocate the uploadFile function in FileServiceImpl.java and identify its REST endpoint mapping (typically /file/upload or similar). Attempt a GET request to confirm the endpoint is exposed.Affected if The uploadFile endpoint is accessible without authentication or with user-level authentication
-
Check for file type validation in the upload functionReview the uploadFile function code in FileServiceImpl.java for file extension, MIME type, or content-type validation logicAffected if No whitelist-based file type validation is implemented (the function accepts any file extension)
-
Inspect upload directory configurationCheck the application's configuration files (application.properties/yml) for the upload directory path and verify if it is placed outside the web rootAffected if Uploads are stored in a web-accessible directory or the default configuration is used without modification
You are affected if the megagao ssm-erp system (version 0.0.1 or earlier) is deployed with the uploadFile function accessible and lacking file type/content 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 file type validation using both extension and MIME type whitelisting, validate file content (magic bytes), rename uploaded files to prevent filename collisions and strip executable extensions, enforce file size limits, and store uploads in a non-executable directory outside the web root.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,664.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-4333 — 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-2025-4333 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