Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- EPSS is 0.42% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2025
CVE-2025-13426High confidence
Improper Sandboxing in Google Apigee's JavaCallout Policy Allows for Remote Code Execution
Google Cloud · Apigee hybrid Javacallout policy
8.7HighCVSS 4.0
Within 7 days
Fix not verifiedHigh technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityHigh→Operational priority:High, unchanged from published severity.unchanged
Compensating controls
- Restrict the affected network interface to trusted sources where business-safe.
- Monitor vendor guidance and exploitation sources for a material change.
Verification
- Confirm that the asset runs Google Cloud Apigee hybrid Javacallout policy and falls inside the recorded affected range.
- Recheck the vendor advisory before scheduling a change because no verified fixed version is currently retained.
- Validate exposure, authentication requirements and compensating controls in the actual environment.
- Reopen this reassessment when CVSS, KEV, EPSS, exploit evidence or remediation changes.
High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
Fix not verified01
What, why and how
A vulnerability exists in Google Apigee's JavaCallout policy https://docs.apigee.com/api-platform/reference/policies/java-callout-policy that allows for remote code execution. It is possible for a user to write a JavaCallout that injected a malicious object into the MessageContext to execute arbitrary Java code and system commands at runtime, leading to unauthorized access to data, lateral movement within the network, and access to backend systems. The Apigee hybrid versions below have all been updated to protect from this vulnerability: * Hybrid_1.11.2+ * Hybrid_1.12.4+ * Hybrid_1.13.3+ * Hybrid_1.14.1+ * OPDK_5202+ * OPDK_5300+
What
A vulnerability exists in Google Apigee's JavaCallout policy https://docs.apigee.com/api-platform/reference/policies/java-callout-policy that allows for remote code execution. It is possible for a user to write a JavaCallout that injected a malicious object into the MessageContext to execute arbitrary Java code and system commands at runtime, leading to unauthorized access to data, lateral movement within the network, and access to backend systems. The Apigee hybrid versions below have all been updated to protect from this vulnerability: * Hybrid_1.11.2+ * Hybrid_1.12.4+ * Hybrid_1.13.3+ * Hybrid_1.14.1+ * OPDK_5202+ * OPDK_5300+
Why
The product does not properly restrict reading from or writing to dynamically-managed code resources such as variables, objects, classes, attributes, functions, or executable instructions or statements.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may execute code or commands in the affected security context.
What
A vulnerability exists in Google Apigee's JavaCallout policy https://docs.apigee.com/api-platform/reference/policies/java-callout-policy that allows for remote code execution. It is possible for a user to write a JavaCallout that injected a malicious object into the MessageContext to execute arbitrary Java code and system commands at runtime, leading to unauthorized access to data, lateral movement within the network, and access to backend systems. The Apigee hybrid versions below have all been updated to protect from this vulnerability: * Hybrid_1.11.2+ * Hybrid_1.12.4+ * Hybrid_1.13.3+ * Hybrid_1.14.1+ * OPDK_5202+ * OPDK_5300+
Why
The product does not properly restrict reading from or writing to dynamically-managed code resources such as variables, objects, classes, attributes, functions, or executable instructions or statements.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation with low 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
- a network path → Improper Control of Dynamically-Managed Code Resources → execute code or commands in the affected security context
- Attack surface
- Network
- Privileges required
- Low: a basic authenticated account 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-913 ↗
CWE-913: Improper Control of Dynamically-Managed Code Resources. The product does not properly restrict reading from or writing to dynamically-managed code resources such as variables, objects, classes, attributes, functions, or executable instructions or statements.
- CVSS vector
?
CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity. CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/U:ClearCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 4.0: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
AVNetworkAttack vector: The vulnerable component can be reached over a network.ACLowAttack complexity: No specialised conditions are required beyond attacker-controlled input.ATNoneAttack requirements: No additional deployment or execution condition is required.PRLowPrivileges required: The attacker needs basic user-level 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.VAHighVulnerable-system availability: A successful attack can cause a major loss.SCNoneSubsequent-system confidentiality: No direct loss is represented by this metric.SINoneSubsequent-system integrity: No direct loss is represented by this metric.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 not verified
- Affected
- Apigee hybrid Javacallout policy: < Hybrid_1.11.2, < Hybrid_1.12.4, < Hybrid_1.13.3, < Hybrid_1.14.1, < OPDK_5202, < OPDK_5300
- Fixed
- No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
- Action
- No verified patch reference is present in the current structured sources. Check the vendor advisory before making a change.
- Workaround
- No verified workaround is recorded. If business-safe, reduce exposure to the affected interface and allow only trusted sources until authoritative guidance is available.
04
Evidence and provenance
Published 5 Dec 2025 · Last source change 8 Dec 2025, 17:27 UTC · CWE-913 · Improper Control of Dynamically-Managed Code Resources
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-2025-201493
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
- Affected versionsThe structured affected or fixed version information changed.CNA ↗
- Before
- < Hybrid_1.11.2; < Hybrid_1.12.4; < Hybrid_1.13.3; < Hybrid_1.14.1; < OPDK_5202; < OPDK_5300 · Fixed: No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
- After
- Apigee hybrid Javacallout policy: < Hybrid_1.11.2, < Hybrid_1.12.4, < Hybrid_1.13.3, < Hybrid_1.14.1, < OPDK_5202, < OPDK_5300 · Fixed: No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
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.