CVE-2025-63690
Pig4Cloud Pig ≤ 3.8.2
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2025-63690 is a critical-severity Unsafe Reflection (CWE-470) vulnerability in Pig4Cloud Pig. Its CVSS base score is 9.1 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Reflective Code Loading (T1620); ranked in the top 41% 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 SI-10 (Information Input Validation) and AC-3 (Access Enforcement) — 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.
CVE-2025-63690 is a remote code execution vulnerability (CWE-470: Unsafe Reflection) in pig-mesh Pig versions 3.8.2 and below. The flaw occurs in the Quartz management function within the system management module during scheduled task setup, allowing execution of any Java class with a parameterless constructor and methods accepting a String parameter via reflection. Attackers can leverage the eval method in Tomcat's built-in jakarta.el.ELProcessor class to execute arbitrary commands.
Exploitation is feasible by a network-accessible attacker with high privileges (PR:H), such as those permitting scheduled task configuration. The attack requires low complexity (AC:L), no user interaction (UI:N), and results in a scope change (S:C) with high impacts on confidentiality, integrity, and availability (C:H/I:H/A:H), yielding a CVSS v3.1 base score of 9.1.
Advisories and further details, including potential patches or workarounds, are documented in the referenced GitHub repositories: https://github.com/LockeTom/vulnerability/blob/main/md/pig_Remote_Code_Execution_Vulnerability.md and https://github.com/pig-mesh/pig/issues/1199.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-38290
Vulnerability Data
In pig-mesh Pig versions 3.8.2 and below, when setting up scheduled tasks in the Quartz management function under the system management module, it is possible to execute any Java class with a parameterless constructor and its methods with parameter type…
more
String through reflection. At this time, the eval method in Tomcat's built-in class jakarta.el.ELProcessor can be used to execute commands, leading to a remote code execution vulnerability.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Input validation directly stops externally supplied class or method names from selecting improper code via reflection.
Enforces authorization checks on the code or classes ultimately invoked, blocking unauthorized selections even if reflection is used.
Limits privileges of any code reached through unsafe reflection, reducing blast radius without stopping the selection itself.
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.
Secure SDLC practices directly avoid introducing externally controlled class selection via reflection.
Vulnerability identification processes can discover unsafe reflection during code review or scanning.
Preventing execution of unauthorized code can block exploitation of unsafe reflection at runtime.
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.
Secure coding standards directly forbid unsafe reflection and require whitelisting or static alternatives.
Security testing can detect and block unsafe reflection patterns before release.
Secure development lifecycle mandates input validation and design reviews that reduce unsafe reflection risks.
Application security requirements can explicitly prohibit or constrain reflection based on untrusted input.
Secure architecture principles discourage dynamic class loading from external data sources.
Access restrictions limit who can supply the malicious input but do not address the reflection flaw itself.