CVE-2025-59340
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 · uneditedjinjava is a Java-based template engine based on django template syntax, adapted to render jinja templates. Priori to 2.8.1, by using mapper.getTypeFactory().constructFromCanonical(), it is possible to instruct the underlying ObjectMapper to deserialize attacker-controlled input into arbitrary classes. This enables the creation of semi-arbitrary class instances without directly invoking restricted methods or class literals. As a result, an attacker can escape the sandbox and instantiate classes such as java.net.URL, opening up the ability to access local files and URLs(e.g., file:///etc/passwd). With further chaining, this primitive can potentially lead to remote code execution (RCE). This vulnerability is fixed in 2.8.1.
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 confidenceThis is a deserialization vulnerability in jinjava template engine. By abusing mapper.getTypeFactory().constructFromCanonical(), attackers can deserialize attacker-controlled input into arbitrary Java classes, bypassing sandbox restrictions. This allows instantiation of dangerous classes like java.net.URL to access local files (file:///etc/passwd) and potentially achieve RCE through further chaining.
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< 2.8.1CVSS 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
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/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 jinjava library versionLocate the jinjava JAR file or check your dependency management system (Maven pom.xml, Gradle build.gradle, or similar) for the jinjava library version. Use 'mvn dependency:tree' or 'gradle dependencies' to list the resolved version.Affected if The reported version is below 2.8.1 (e.g., 2.8.0, 2.7.0, etc.)
-
Determine template input sourceReview your application's code that uses Jinjava to identify where template content originates. Check if templates come from user requests, external APIs, or untrusted sources.Affected if Templates or template fragments are sourced from untrusted input (HTTP requests, user-uploaded content, database values controlled by users, etc.)
-
Locate ObjectMapper usage with constructFromCanonicalSearch your codebase or the jinjava library for calls to ObjectMapper.getTypeFactory().constructFromCanonical() or similar TypeFactory methods that accept string class names from template variables.Affected if Your application or the jinjava version in use contains code that passes template variable values to these unsafe ObjectMapper methods.
-
Check for deserialization gadget exposureAudit your classpath for known Java deserialization gadgets (e.g., javax.script.*, java.net.URL, Spring framework classes, Apache Commons libraries) that could be instantiated if the vulnerability is reachable.Affected if Classes vulnerable to gadget-based exploitation are present on the classpath and the vulnerable code path is exposed to untrusted input.
You are affected if jinjava version is below 2.8.1 AND untrusted template input can reach the vulnerable ObjectMapper.getTypeFactory().constructFromCanonical() method in your application.
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 · scoped2.8.1
Upgrade jinjava to version 2.8.1 or later to patch the vulnerability. If immediate upgrade is not possible, restrict or disable user-supplied input from reaching the affected ObjectMapper methods.
Jinjava 2.8.1
- Upgrade Jinjava library to version 2.8.1 or later
- Update the dependency in your project's build configuration (Maven pom.xml, Gradle build.gradle, or similar)
- Verify the upgrade by running your test suite to ensure the application functions correctly
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,320.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-59340 — 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-2025-59340 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