CVE-2025-51743
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 · uneditedAn issue was discovered in jishenghua JSH_ERP 2.3.1. The /materialCategory/addMaterialCategory endpoint is vulnerable to fastjson deserialization attacks.
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 confidenceThe /materialCategory/addMaterialCategory endpoint in jishenghua JSH_ERP version 2.3.1 is vulnerable to fastjson deserialization attacks. Attackers can send crafted JSON payloads containing malicious serialized objects that, when deserialized by the vulnerable fastjson library, can lead to remote code execution.
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<= 2.3.1CVSS 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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify JSH_ERP installation and versionLocate the JSH_ERP application and check its version file or about page. Common locations include version manifests, pom.xml, or application properties files that contain the version string.Affected if The installed version is 2.3.1 or any version lower than 2.3.1
-
Confirm fastjson library presenceInspect the application classpath, lib directory, or build configuration (pom.xml, build.gradle) for the fastjson library. Search for artifacts named 'fastjson' or 'com.alibaba.fastjson'.Affected if The fastjson library is present in the application dependencies
-
Check fastjson version in useExamine the specific fastjson version declared in the dependency management. Look for the version attribute attached to the fastjson artifact in your build files.Affected if The fastjson version is below 1.2.83 or the version cannot be determined (indicating an older release)
-
Verify vulnerable endpoint exposureConfirm that the application exposes the /materialCategory/addMaterialCategory endpoint. This may be visible in route configurations, API documentation, or through network scanning of the deployed application.Affected if The /materialCategory/addMaterialCategory endpoint is accessible and responds to requests
You are affected if you are running JSH_ERP version 2.3.1 or lower AND the fastjson library is present in your deployment, particularly if fastjson version is unpatched or below 1.2.83.
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 dataUpdate fastjson to a secure version (1.2.83+ with auto-type disabled or migrate to a safer JSON library such as Jackson or Gson), disable auto-type support in fastjson configuration, and implement input validation on the affected endpoint.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-51743 — 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-2025-51743 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