Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- Exploitation requires an existing local or physical foothold with privileges.
- EPSS is 0.19% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2025
CVE-2025-11226High confidence
Conditional processing of logback.xml configuration file, in conjuction with Spring Framework and Janino
QOS.CH Sarl · Logback-core
7.0HighCVSS 4.0
Patch only the product branches with a verified fix
Fix availability varies by productHigh technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance. Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 3 structured product or package states remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityHigh→Operational priority:Medium, lowered one band.downgradedsince 25 Jun 2026
Compensating controls
- Validate the affected product branch and deploy the verified fixed release.
- Restrict local access and enforce least privilege on affected hosts.
- Monitor vendor guidance and exploitation sources for a material change.
Verification
- Confirm that the asset runs QOS.CH Sarl Logback-core and falls inside the recorded affected range.
- Verify the installed build against the product-specific fixed version after deployment.
- Validate exposure, authentication requirements and compensating controls in the actual environment.
- Reopen this reassessment when CVSS, KEV, EPSS, exploit evidence or remediation changes.
Remediation availability differs by product scope
Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 3 structured product or package states remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.
- Debian Security Tracker: 3 affected package states with no published fix
Distribution package intelligence
5 package statesRelease-specific package status
Debian, ubuntu findings are scoped to the named distribution, release and source package. An absent finding does not mean a package is unaffected.
Package result overrides the generic status
BlackTree has verified remediation for at least one product or source, but the relevant distribution still reports no fixed package for 3 affected package states shown here. Treat those rows as affected with no fix until that distribution publishes a fixed version.
Repository candidate not checked
A published vendor fix does not prove that a matching update is enabled and installable on a particular asset. Confirm the local package candidate before scheduling remediation.
| Distribution release | Source package | Vendor state | Fixed version | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Debian trixietrixie · source | logback | Affected, no fix publishedDebian currently tracks this release as open. | Not published in this feed | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
| Debian bookwormbookworm · source | logback | Affected, no fix publishedDebian currently tracks this release as open. | Not published in this feed | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
| Debian forkyforky · source | logback | Affected, no fix publishedDebian currently tracks this release as open. | Not published in this feed | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
| Debian sidsid · source | logback | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 1:1.6.3-1 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
| Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archive | logback | Under evaluationCanonical reports that the package might be affected and still needs evaluation or fixing. | Not published in this feed | Canonical Ubuntu Security ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
Open-source package ranges4 source-attributed ranges
These OSV and GitHub advisory ranges apply only to the named package and ecosystem. A listed fixed version is not a universal product patch or proof that an update is installed.
| Ecosystem and package | Affected range | First fixed version | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mavench.qos.logback:logback-core | ECOSYSTEM: introduced 1.4.0; fixed 1.5.19 | 1.5.19 | OSV record ↗aggregator derived · 10 Sep 2026 |
| Mavench.qos.logback:logback-core | ECOSYSTEM: introduced 0; fixed 1.3.16 | 1.3.16 | OSV record ↗aggregator derived · 10 Sep 2026 |
| mavench.qos.logback:logback-core | >= 1.4.0, < 1.5.19 | 1.5.19 | GitHub advisory ↗github reviewed aggregator · 31 Oct 2025 |
| mavench.qos.logback:logback-core | < 1.3.16 | 1.3.16 | GitHub advisory ↗github reviewed aggregator · 31 Oct 2025 |
High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance. Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 3 structured product or package states remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.
Fix availability varies by product01
What, why and how
ACE vulnerability in conditional configuration file processing by QOS.CH logback-core up to and including version 1.5.18 in Java applications, allows an attacker to execute arbitrary code by compromising an existing logback configuration file or by injecting an environment variable before program execution. A successful attack requires the presence of Janino library and Spring Framework to be present on the user's class path. In addition, the attacker must have write access to a configuration file. Alternatively, the attacker could inject a malicious environment variable pointing to a malicious configuration file. In both cases, the attack requires existing privilege.
What
ACE vulnerability in conditional configuration file processing by QOS.CH logback-core up to and including version 1.5.18 in Java applications, allows an attacker to execute arbitrary code by compromising an existing logback configuration file or by injecting an environment variable before program execution. A successful attack requires the presence of Janino library and Spring Framework to be present on the user's class path. In addition, the attacker must have write access to a configuration file. Alternatively, the attacker could inject a malicious environment variable pointing to a malicious configuration file. In both cases, the attack requires existing privilege.
Why
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
How
An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation with elevated privileges. If successful, the issue may execute code or commands in the affected security context.
What
ACE vulnerability in conditional configuration file processing by QOS.CH logback-core up to and including version 1.5.18 in Java applications, allows an attacker to execute arbitrary code by compromising an existing logback configuration file or by injecting an environment variable before program execution. A successful attack requires the presence of Janino library and Spring Framework to be present on the user's class path. In addition, the attacker must have write access to a configuration file. Alternatively, the attacker could inject a malicious environment variable pointing to a malicious configuration file. In both cases, the attack requires existing privilege.
Why
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
How
An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation with elevated privileges. If successful, the issue may execute code or commands in the affected security context.
02
Exploit reality and attack path
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
Observed exploitation No confirmed evidence
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
Public PoC / exploit material None recorded
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.
- Likely attack path
- local access → Improper Input Validation → execute code or commands in the affected security context
- Attack surface
- Local
- Privileges required
- High: elevated access is required
- User interaction
- None
- Attack complexity
- Low: no specialised conditions are recorded
- Security boundary
- Not a CVSS 4.0 base metric
- Weakness
?
CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness. - CWE-20 ↗
CWE-20: Improper Input Validation. The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
- CVSS vector
?
CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity. CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/SA:N/S:P/AU:N/RE:M/U:GreenCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 4.0: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
AVLocalAttack vector: The attacker needs local access to the vulnerable system.ACLowAttack complexity: No specialised conditions are required beyond attacker-controlled input.ATPresentAttack requirements: A particular deployment or execution condition must be present.PRHighPrivileges required: The attacker needs elevated or administrative privileges.UINoneUser interaction: No action by another user is required.VCHighVulnerable-system confidentiality: A successful attack can cause a major loss.VIHighVulnerable-system integrity: A successful attack can cause a major loss.VANoneVulnerable-system availability: No direct loss is represented by this metric.SCLowSubsequent-system confidentiality: A successful attack can cause a limited loss.SILowSubsequent-system integrity: A successful attack can cause a limited loss.SANoneSubsequent-system availability: No direct loss is represented by this metric.- Post-exploitation / living off the land
- After compromise, an attacker may use built-in shells, scripting engines, scheduled tasks and native network utilities for discovery, persistence or movement. This is a plausible LoTL path, not evidence that it has occurred for every attack.
03
Patch and workaround
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
- Status
?
Patch availability is based on structured fixed-version fields and authoritative update references. If no fix is verified, check the vendor advisory before making a change. - Fix availability varies by product
- Affected
- Logback-core: 0.9.20 ≤ 1.5.18
- Action
- Use the product-specific evidence above. Patch only products with a verified fixed release, and keep every affected or under-investigation state without a matching fix in the remediation queue.
- Workaround
- No verified workaround is recorded. Limit untrusted access and use least privilege until authoritative guidance is available.
Official vendor articles1 stored document
Linked articles are downloaded and versioned as source evidence. A CVE mention or approved update relationship does not, by itself, verify a fix for every product branch.
- Security Bulletin - July 21 2026 | Atlassian Support | Atlassian Documentation →Original publisher ↗Searchable text snapshot · Captured 26 Sep 2026Unable to load Security Bulletin - July 21 2026 Security Advisories & Bulletins November 2022: Atlassian Security Advisories Overview Archived Security Advisories Security Advisories for Apps July 2022: Atlassian Security Advisories Overview August 2022: Atlassian Security Advisories Overview January 2023: Securit
04
Evidence and provenance
Published 1 Oct 2025 · Last source change 25 Jun 2026, 16:04 UTC · CWE-20 · Improper Input Validation
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.2
CVSS sourceCNA
EPSS source FIRST · tracked since 2026-08-14
?
The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2025-32903
Product sourceCNA
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceCNA
NVD statusNVD not scheduled
Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.
Material change intelligence
View recent updates ↗What changed after publication
No material field changes have been recorded since change tracking began. Routine source refreshes and cosmetic edits are intentionally excluded.
CVE published
Fixed release or patch reference recorded
Technical terms and abbreviations used in this report
- CVE
- Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures: the public identifier for one disclosed vulnerability.
- CVSS
- Common Vulnerability Scoring System: a technical severity framework; it is not patching priority by itself.
- EPSS
- Exploit Prediction Scoring System: FIRST's estimate of the probability that exploitation activity will be observed in the next 30 days; it is a forecast, not confirmation.
- CWE
- Common Weakness Enumeration: the standard category describing the underlying software or hardware weakness.
- CNA
- CVE Numbering Authority: an organisation authorised to assign and publish CVE records.
- CISA ADP
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Authorized Data Publisher: structured enrichment added to a CVE record.
- NVD
- National Vulnerability Database: NIST's enrichment service for CVE records.
- CERT / CSIRT
- A computer security incident response team that publishes warnings or coordinates incident response.
- PoC
- Proof of concept: public material that demonstrates or helps reproduce exploitation.
- CSAF
- Common Security Advisory Framework: a machine-readable format for security advisories.
- LoTL
- Living off the land: abuse of legitimate tools or system functions during an attack.