Skip to content

Upgrade jersey libraries to address CVE-2025-12383#21395

Open
tengu-alt wants to merge 1 commit intoapache:3.9from
tengu-alt:upgrade-jersey-libraries
Open

Upgrade jersey libraries to address CVE-2025-12383#21395
tengu-alt wants to merge 1 commit intoapache:3.9from
tengu-alt:upgrade-jersey-libraries

Conversation

@tengu-alt
Copy link

@tengu-alt tengu-alt commented Feb 3, 2026

This PR upgrades jersey libraries family from 2.39.1 to 2.46 to address CVE-2025-12383

Note: while 2.39.1 is not listed as vulnerable - security scanners still may alert it as vulnerable

@tengu-alt
Copy link
Author

@FrankYang0529 Could you please take a look or ping someone to review this?
It would be nice to include this in the future 3.9.2 release (I assume it is upcoming since the release candidate is presented)

@FrankYang0529
Copy link
Member

@tengu-alt Thanks for the fix. We will take a look to check whether to include this in 3.9.2.

@chia7712
Copy link
Member

chia7712 commented Feb 4, 2026

The CVE is regarding eclipse-ee4j/jersey#5749, and the patch was NOT merged into 2.39.1. Hence, I think Kafka 3.9.2 is NOT affected by CVE-2025-12383

@tengu-alt @FrankYang0529 WDYT?

javassist: "3.29.2-GA",
jetty: "9.4.57.v20241219",
jersey: "2.39.1",
jersey: "2.46",
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Curious why 2.46 and not 2.47 when that's the latest released 2.x version?

@gaurav-narula
Copy link
Contributor

gaurav-narula commented Feb 4, 2026

@chia7712 https://gitlab.eclipse.org/security/vulnerability-reports/-/issues/253 mentions a reproducer for the CVE is at https://github.com/dtbaum/jerseyCveCandidate. I was able to reproduce it with 2.39.1 as well using that repo by editing pom.xml to update the version and replacing jakarta.* imports with javax.* in JerseyCveCandidate.java.

@chia7712
Copy link
Member

chia7712 commented Feb 4, 2026

@gaurav-narula thanks for the verification. I'm wondering whether it is the same issue, since PRs mentioned by the CVE is unrelated to 2.39.1

@gaurav-narula
Copy link
Contributor

@gaurav-narula thanks for the verification. I'm wondering whether it is the same issue, since PRs mentioned by the CVE is unrelated to 2.39.1

I'm fairly certain it's the same issue as the PoC is asserting the same CVE and it's reproducible in 2.39.1. Here's the trail I could find:

@chia7712
Copy link
Member

chia7712 commented Feb 4, 2026

@gaurav-narula thanks for the info

@FrankYang0529 it seems we need to cut another RC

@yeikel
Copy link
Contributor

yeikel commented Feb 5, 2026

Does this mean that the CVE data is just wrong?

I ask because CVE-2025-12383 only references 2.45, 3.0.16, 3.1.9

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants