CVE-2025-8154
Wso2 Api Manager 4.1.0 – 4.1.0.218
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:NSummary
CVE-2025-8154 is a medium-severity Injection (CWE-74) vulnerability in Wso2 Api Manager. Its CVSS base score is 5.3 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 8th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SI-10 (Information Input Validation) and SI-15 (Information Output Filtering) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-209758
Vulnerability Data
In Webhook API invocations, the component accepts user-supplied input for HTTP request headers without sufficient validation or sanitization, allowing these headers to be injected into HTTP responses. By exploiting this vulnerability, a malicious actor can inject or overwrite arbitrary HTTP…
more
response headers. This can lead to various adverse effects, including the manipulation of browser caching, alteration of security-related headers, and the injection of sensitive information such as cookie values, potentially enabling session hijacking or other malicious activities.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise TechniquesAI
Why these techniques?
Header injection vuln in webhook API directly enables exploitation of public-facing web application (T1190).
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Directly requires validation and sanitization of untrusted user-supplied header values before they are used in HTTP responses, blocking the CWE-74 injection vector at its source.
Mandates filtering of system output (response headers) to remove or neutralize untrusted data that could overwrite security headers or inject cookies.
Enforces information-flow rules that can restrict which header values are permitted to flow from user input into HTTP responses, limiting header-injection impact.
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 require input validation and output encoding that prevent injection flaws.
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 injection vulnerabilities before release.
Logging supports detection of injection attempts but does not prevent the weakness.
Monitoring activities can identify active injection attacks after they occur.
Secure development life cycle mandates input validation and output encoding that directly prevent injection flaws.
Application security requirements explicitly call for controls against injection attacks in software design.
Secure architecture principles reduce injection surfaces but do not prescribe specific neutralization techniques.