Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2025-56816 is a high-severity Path Traversal (CWE-22) vulnerability in Running-Elephant Datart. Its CVSS base score is 8.8 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked in the top 33% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to AC-3 (Access Enforcement) and SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
Datart 1.0.0-rc.3 contains a directory traversal flaw in its configuration file handling that permits attackers to upload arbitrary YAML content to the path config/jdbc-driver-ext.yml. The application then deserializes this file using SnakeYAML's unsafe load or loadAs methods without any input validation, enabling instantiation of attacker-controlled classes and, under suitable conditions, remote code execution. The issue is tracked under both CWE-22 and CWE-502 and carries a CVSS 3.1 score of 8.8.
An unauthenticated network attacker can trigger the flaw with user interaction, supplying a malicious YAML file that results in arbitrary code execution and full compromise of confidentiality, integrity, and availability on the affected instance. The referenced Datart repository and the related CVE-2025-56815 disclosure provide no public advisories or patch details.
EPSS remains flat at 0.0273 with no observed rise after disclosure.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-31012
Vulnerability Data
Datart 1.0.0-rc.3 is vulnerable to Directory Traversal. The configuration file handling of the application allows attackers to upload arbitrary YAML files to the config/jdbc-driver-ext.yml path. The application parses this file using SnakeYAML's unsafe load() or loadAs() method without input sanitization.…
more
This allows deserialization of attacker-controlled YAML content, leading to arbitrary class instantiation. Under certain conditions, this can be exploited to achieve remote code execution (RCE).
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V5.3.2
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Enforces the intended directory access authorizations that path traversal would otherwise bypass.
Developer testing and evaluation can uncover deserialization flaws before deployment.
Input validation directly neutralizes special path elements before pathname construction occurs.
Least privilege reduces the impact of any unauthorized file access obtained via traversal.
Engineering principles such as safe deserialization and input sanitization structurally prevent the weakness from being introduced.
Integrity verification tools can detect malformed or tampered serialized data after the fact.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Patching/maintenance can remediate known path-traversal flaws in deployed software (partial prevention of exploitability) but does nothing to stop the coding defect from being introduced in the first place.
PR.AA-05 defines and reviews access policies but does not address code-level pathname neutralization, so neither direction prevents CWE-22.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Security testing in development catches path traversal via static/dynamic analysis.
Secure SDLC mandates input validation and path sanitization that directly prevent path traversal.
Application security requirements include rules for safe file handling and canonicalization.
Secure architecture principles require least-privilege file access and directory isolation.
Secure coding standards explicitly forbid unsafe path construction and mandate safe APIs.
Information access restriction limits which files an application may read or write.