CVE-2025-60012
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 · uneditedMalicious configuration can lead to unauthorized file access in Apache Livy. This issue affects Apache Livy 0.7.0 and 0.8.0 when connecting to Apache Spark 3.1 or later. A request that includes a Spark configuration value supported from Apache Spark version 3.1 can lead to users gaining access to files they do not have permissions to. For the vulnerability to be exploitable, the user needs to have access to Apache Livy's REST or JDBC interface and be able to send requests with arbitrary Spark configuration values. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 0.9.0 or later, which fixes the issue.
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 confidenceApache Livy 0.7.0 and 0.8.0 fail to properly validate Spark configuration values when used with Spark 3.1 or later, allowing authenticated users to inject malicious Spark configuration options that enable unauthorized file access on the host system. The vulnerability stems from Livy passing through arbitrary Spark configuration parameters without sanitization, enabling access to files outside the intended permissions scope.
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>= 0.7.0, < 0.9.0CVSS 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 Apache Livy versionCheck the Livy installation directory for version information. Common locations include a VERSION file, or check the Livy server startup logs for the version number.Affected if Livy version is 0.7.0, 0.8.0, or any version >= 0.7.0 and < 0.9.0
-
Determine Spark version in useCheck the Livy configuration files (livy.conf) or the Spark environment to identify which Spark version Livy is configured to use.Affected if Spark version is 3.1 or later, as the vulnerability specifically affects configurations using Spark 3.1+
-
Verify Livy server is accessibleCheck if the Livy REST API (default port 8998) or JDBC interface is running and accepting connections. This can be done by attempting to reach the Livy endpoints.Affected if Livy server is running and accessible to users, as the vulnerability requires authenticated users to submit malicious Spark configuration
-
Inspect Livy Spark configuration handlingReview Livy configuration files for any settings that control which Spark configuration parameters Livy accepts from users. Look for settings related to spark conf pass-through or allowed configurations.Affected if Livy is configured to accept arbitrary Spark configuration parameters from user requests without validation
Your environment is affected if you are running Apache Livy version 0.7.0 through 0.8.x with Spark 3.1 or later, and users have access to Livy's REST or JDBC interfaces to submit custom Spark configuration values.
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 · scoped0.9.0
Upgrade Apache Livy to version 0.9.0 or later, which contains the fix for this authorization bypass. Until then, restrict access to Livy's REST and JDBC interfaces to trusted users only.
0.9.0 or later
- 1. Review the Apache Livy 0.9.0 release notes and changelog to understand any configuration or API changes from version 0.7.0 or 0.8.0
- 2. Back up your current Livy configuration files (livy.conf, spark-defaults.conf, and any custom configurations)
- 3. Stop the Apache Livy service
- 4. Download Apache Livy 0.9.0 or later from the official Apache download mirrors (https://livy.apache.org/download/)
- 5. Install the new version following the standard Livy installation process
- 6. Restore your backed-up configuration files, reviewing them for any deprecated settings
- 7. Ensure the Livy server is configured to connect to your Apache Spark 3.1 or later cluster
- 8. Start the Apache Livy service and verify it connects successfully to Spark
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing8.0 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 $8,960.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-60012 — 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-2025-60012 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