Skip to content

Remote Code Execution (RCE) vulnerability in geoserver

Critical severity GitHub Reviewed Published Jul 1, 2024 in geoserver/geoserver • Updated Oct 22, 2025

Package

org.geoserver.web:gs-web-app (Maven)

Affected versions

>= 2.24.0, < 2.24.4
>= 2.25.0, < 2.25.2
>= 2.23.0, < 2.23.6
< 2.22.6

Patched versions

2.24.4
2.25.2
2.23.6
2.22.6
org.geoserver:gs-wfs (Maven)
>= 2.24.0, < 2.24.4
>= 2.25.0, < 2.25.2
>= 2.23.0, < 2.23.6
< 2.22.6
2.24.4
2.25.2
2.23.6
2.22.6
org.geoserver:gs-wms (Maven)
>= 2.24.0, < 2.24.4
>= 2.25.0, < 2.25.2
>= 2.23.0, < 2.23.6
< 2.22.6
2.24.4
2.25.2
2.23.6
2.22.6

Description

Summary

Multiple OGC request parameters allow Remote Code Execution (RCE) by unauthenticated users through specially crafted input against a default GeoServer installation due to unsafely evaluating property names as XPath expressions.

Details

The GeoTools library API that GeoServer calls evaluates property/attribute names for feature types in a way that unsafely passes them to the commons-jxpath library which can execute arbitrary code when evaluating XPath expressions. This XPath evaluation is intended to be used only by complex feature types (i.e., Application Schema data stores) but is incorrectly being applied to simple feature types as well which makes this vulnerability apply to ALL GeoServer instances.

PoC

No public PoC is provided but this vulnerability has been confirmed to be exploitable through WFS GetFeature, WFS GetPropertyValue, WMS GetMap, WMS GetFeatureInfo, WMS GetLegendGraphic and WPS Execute requests.

Impact

This vulnerability can lead to executing arbitrary code.

Workaround

A workaround exists by removing the gt-complex-x.y.jar file from the GeoServer where x.y is the GeoTools version (e.g., gt-complex-31.1.jar if running GeoServer 2.25.1). This will remove the vulnerable code from GeoServer but may break some GeoServer functionality or prevent GeoServer from deploying if the gt-complex module is needed by an extension you are using:

Mitigation for geoserver.war deploy:

  1. Stop the application server
  2. Unzip geoserver.war into a directory
  3. Locate the file WEB-INF/lib/gt-complex-x.y.jar and remove
  4. Zip the directory into a new geoserver.war
  5. Restart the application server

Mitigation for GeoServer binary:

  1. Stop Jetty
  2. Locate the file webapps/geoserver/WEB-INF/lib/gt-complex-x.y.jar and remove
  3. Restart Jetty

The following extensions and community modules are known to have a direct dependency on gt-complex jar and are not expected function properly without it. This is not comprehensive list and additional GeoServer functionality may be dependent on the availability of gt-complex jar:

  • Extensions: Application Schema, Catalog Services for the Web, MongoDB Data Store
  • Community Modules: Features-Templating, OGC API Modules, Smart Data Loader, SOLR Data Store

Mitigation available for prior releases patching three jars in your existing install:

  1. Patched gt-app-schema, gt-complex and gt-xsd-core jars may be downloaded for GeoServer: 2.25.1, 2.24.3, 2.24.2, 2.23.2, 2.22.2, 2.21.5, 2.21.4,2.20.7, 2.20.4, 2.19.2, 2.18.0.

    As example the 2.25.1 page links to geoserver-2.25.1-patches.zip download on source forge.

  2. Unzip the geoserver-x.y.z-patches.zip which contains three jars that have been patched to configure commons-jxpath with an empty function list prior to use. These files are drop-in replacements with identical file names to those they are replacing.

  3. Follow the instructions above to locate WEB-INF/lib folder and replace the existing gt-app-schema, gt-complex and gt-xsd-core jars with those supplied by the patch.

References

GHSA-w3pj-wh35-fq8w
https://osgeo-org.atlassian.net/browse/GEOT-7587
geotools/geotools#4797
https://github.com/Warxim/CVE-2022-41852?tab=readme-ov-file#workaround-for-cve-2022-41852

References

@jodygarnett jodygarnett published to geoserver/geoserver Jul 1, 2024
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Jul 1, 2024
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Jul 1, 2024
Reviewed Jul 1, 2024
Last updated Oct 22, 2025

Severity

Critical

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Network
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements None
Privileges Required None
User interaction None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality High
Integrity High
Availability High
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability None

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:A

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(100th percentile)

Weaknesses

Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')

The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment. Learn more on MITRE.

Improper Neutralization of Directives in Dynamically Evaluated Code ('Eval Injection')

The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes code syntax before using the input in a dynamic evaluation call (e.g. eval). Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2024-36401

GHSA ID

GHSA-6jj6-gm7p-fcvv

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.