JsherpApplication · Jishenghua

CVE-2025-51742

CRITICAL · 9.8 CVSS v3.1 Published 2025-11-25
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to after 2.3.1 or later.
See remediation →
100/100
Remediation priority · Urgent
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
An issue was discovered in jishenghua JSH_ERP 2.3.1. The /material/getMaterialEnableSerialNumberList endpoint passes the search query parameter directly to parseObject(), introducing a Fastjson deserialization vulnerability that can lead to RCE via JDBC payloads.

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

The /material/getMaterialEnableSerialNumberList endpoint in JSH_ERP 2.3.1 accepts a search query parameter and passes it directly to Fastjson's parseObject() method without sanitization. This creates a deserialization vulnerability where maliciously crafted JSON payloads can trigger Fastjson's auto-type handling to achieve remote code execution, specifically through JDBC-style payloads that instantiate dangerous classes.

MitigationReplace direct parseObject() usage with safer JSON parsing methods such as parse() with strict type constraints, implement explicit whitelisting for deserializable types, or upgrade to a hardened Fastjson version; additionally, network segmentation can reduce exposure while remediation is planned.

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
JsherpApplication
Affected:<= 2.3.1

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
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 checks

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

  1. Identify JSH_ERP installation and version
    Locate the JSH_ERP application files and check the version metadata (typically in pom.xml, version file, or application properties)
    Affected if The installed version is 2.3.1 or lower (any version up to and including 2.3.1)
  2. Verify Fastjson library presence
    Search the application classpath or lib directory for fastjson*.jar files; check build configuration files (pom.xml, build.gradle) for fastjson dependencies
    Affected if Fastjson library is included in the application dependencies
  3. Confirm vulnerable endpoint exposure
    Review application routing configuration or web.xml to verify the /material/getMaterialEnableSerialNumberList endpoint is registered and accessible
    Affected if The /material/getMaterialEnableSerialNumberList endpoint is exposed and reachable
  4. Check Fastjson auto-type configuration
    Examine Fastjson configuration settings (often in application.yml, application.properties, or custom JSON config classes) for features.ParserConfig.autoTypeSupport setting
    Affected if Fastjson auto-type handling is enabled (autoTypeSupport=true or not explicitly disabled)
  5. Inspect the getMaterialEnableSerialNumberList code path
    Locate the controller or service class handling /material/getMaterialEnableSerialNumberList and verify that a search/query parameter is passed directly to com.alibaba.fastjson.JSON.parseObject() without validation
    Affected if The endpoint directly passes user input to parseObject() without sanitization

You are affected if running JSH_ERP version 2.3.1 or lower with Fastjson present and the vulnerable endpoint exposed, especially if Fastjson auto-type handling is enabled and user-controlled input flows directly to parseObject().

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.

From vendor data
Upgrade available Upgrade to a release after 2.3.1
Interim mitigation

Replace direct parseObject() usage with safer JSON parsing methods such as parse() with strict type constraints, implement explicit whitelisting for deserializable types, or upgrade to a hardened Fastjson version; additionally, network segmentation can reduce exposure while remediation is planned.

Fix this in Jsherp Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation4.0 h
  • Testing6.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
14.0 hours of engineering $2,380
Get the upgrade done

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,808.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-51742 — 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-2025-51742 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