CVE-2008-5353

HIGHCVSS v2 · 10.010.0
EchelonGraph scoreLOW confidence

“—” beside the score: it is equal to NVD's CVSS v2 base score.

This CVE was only ever scored under CVSS v2.0. NVD CVSS v2.0 base 10.0 — NVD rates that HIGH (NVD's v2 bands: LOW 0.0–3.9 / MEDIUM 4.0–6.9 / HIGH 7.0–10.0; no CRITICAL band). Vector AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C. CVSS v2 is an older, coarser metric than v3.1/v4.0 (no Scope, no User Interaction, no Attack Requirements), so it is not directly comparable to a v3 or v4 score. NVD has never re-scored this record under v3. EPSS predicts 86% exploitation probability in the next 30 days; it does not lift the v2 base. EPSS sets EG Risk's exploitation input. Confidence: LOW.

Triggered by: NVD CVSS v2.0 (legacy fallback)
Sources: NVD CVSS v2.0
Trending — 4 sources updated this weekWeaponized

Also known asEUVD-2008-5330 (ENISA EUVD) · GHSA-3fx3-qcjv-qr6h (GitHub Security Advisories)Source: ENISA EUVD

10.0EG
EchelonGraph verdictPlan a fixRemediate within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high (the SSVC decision on this page).
  • High exploitation likelihood — EPSS 86%
  • Public exploit code is available (Metasploit, Exploit-DB, marked verified by Exploit-DB)
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 86%CVSS v2: 10.0Exploit: Metasploit · Exploit-DB (verified)Exposed services: Not assessed

A fix is available — apply it.

The Java Runtime Environment (JRE) for Sun JDK and JRE 6 Update 10 and earlier; JDK and JRE 5.0 Update 16 and earlier; and SDK and JRE 1.4.2_18 and earlier does not properly enforce context of ZoneInfo objects during deserialization, which allows remote attackers to run untrusted applets and applications in a privileged context, as demonstrated by "deserializing Calendar objects".

CVSS v2.0 (legacy)
10.0HIGHNVD never assigned a CVSS v3 rating to this CVE
EG Score
10.0HIGHlow confidence
EG Risk
79
EG Risk 79/100

EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score. It fuses impact severity (EG Severity, the CVSS base score, never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score) with real-world exploitation and automatability, under weights EchelonGraph set by hand, so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner.

How it’s computed (value × EchelonGraph’s weight)
Severity100% × 45%
Impact severity (EG Severity): CVSS 10.0 of 10. Never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score.
Exploitation86% × 40%
FIRST EPSS: the 30-day exploitation probability when EchelonGraph scored this CVE.
Automatability0% × 15%
CISA's BOD 26-04 default: no one has published Automatable for this CVE, and CISA treats it as “no” for a CVE not in KEV.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Track at low, Track* at medium and Attend at high mission impact.
Exploitation public PoC (exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE.
Action: A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.
EPSS PROB
86%
EPSS %ILE
99th
KEV
Not listed

What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)

The EG score (10.0): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 10.0 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.

EG Severity
10.0 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.NVD CVSS v2.0 · CVSS v2.0AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
EG Likelihood
86% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-11-01). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
Confirmed exploitation
None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
EG Priority
SSVC Track* at medium mission impactTrack at low, Track* at medium and Attend at high mission impact.CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.

SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low, Track* at medium and Attend at high mission impact.

A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.

Exploitation public PoC (exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table

BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.

The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it

Published

December 5, 2008

Last Modified

April 23, 2026

References (42)

15 of 42 shown · show the other 27

Patch Availability(6)

Vendor / EcosystemFix (by version range) / PatchReleasedSource
ubuntuopenjdk-6-jre (6b12-0ubuntu6.1) @ intrepid2026-11-02ubuntu
redhatjava-1.5.0-ibm-1:1.5.0.9-1jpp.2.el52009-05-07redhat
redhatjava-1.4.2-ibm-0:1.4.2.13-1jpp.1.el52009-04-23redhat
redhatjava-1.6.0-ibm-1:1.6.0.3-1jpp.1.el52009-01-13redhat
redhatjava-1.6.0-sun-1:1.6.0.11-1jpp.1.el52008-12-04redhat
redhatjava-1.5.0-sun-0:1.5.0.17-1jpp.2.el52008-12-04redhat

Patches are aggregated from vendor advisories (Red Hat, Microsoft, Cisco, GitHub) and package ecosystems (OSV, GHSA). Multiple rows for the same upstream release have been deduplicated.

All Vendor Advisories

(7)

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 18× in last 7d / 31× in last 30d)

Each row is a time one of our pipelines fetched, updated or re-scored this CVE. For example, "NVD update" means NVD published or revised its analysis for this CVE; "MITRE cvelistV5" means we ingested or refreshed it from the CNA feed. An arrow marks a change the record states ("CVSS v3 → 9.1"); EPSS and GHSA rows show the values recorded at that time, not what changed (EPSS values are rounded; hover one for the exact figures). Most recent first.

Showing the most recent 100 of 161 refreshes on record for this CVE.

A repeat, a row identical to one the same pipeline wrote less than 10 seconds earlier, is not a separate refresh and is not counted. None are among the latest 100 rows. The 61 oldest rows on record are not shown and were not checked, so the counts can still include repeats.

  1. 2026-11-02 09:12 UTCEG score recompute
  2. 2026-11-02 09:12 UTCVendor advisory
  3. 2026-11-02 09:12 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-3fx3-qcjv-qr6h · GitHub severity HIGH
  4. 2026-11-01 16:25 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 86% · 99th percentile
  5. 2026-11-01 11:31 UTCEG score recompute
  6. 2026-11-01 11:31 UTCVendor advisory
  7. 2026-11-01 11:31 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-3fx3-qcjv-qr6h · GitHub severity HIGH
  8. 2026-10-31 13:49 UTCEG score recompute
  9. 2026-10-31 13:49 UTCVendor advisory
  10. 2026-10-31 13:48 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-3fx3-qcjv-qr6h · GitHub severity HIGH
  11. 2026-10-30 16:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 86% · 99th percentile
  12. 2026-10-30 16:07 UTCVendor advisory
  13. 2026-10-30 16:07 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-3fx3-qcjv-qr6h · GitHub severity HIGH
  14. 2026-10-29 18:25 UTCEG score recompute
  15. 2026-10-29 18:25 UTCVendor advisory
  16. 2026-10-29 18:25 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-3fx3-qcjv-qr6h · GitHub severity HIGH
  17. 2026-10-28 16:25 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 86% · 99th percentile
  18. 2026-10-27 16:25 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 86% · 99th percentile
  19. 2026-10-25 20:27 UTCEG score recompute
  20. 2026-10-25 16:25 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 86% · 99th percentile
  21. 2026-10-24 16:25 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 86% · 99th percentile
  22. 2026-10-20 16:25 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 86% · 99th percentile
  23. 2026-10-19 16:25 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 86% · 99th percentile
  24. 2026-10-18 11:48 UTCEG score recompute
  25. 2026-10-15 16:25 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 86% · 99th percentile
Show 75 more
  1. 2026-10-14 16:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 86% · 99th percentile
  2. 2026-10-13 16:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 86% · 99th percentile
  3. 2026-10-12 21:50 UTCEG score recompute
  4. 2026-10-12 01:57 UTCEG score recompute
  5. 2026-10-08 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 86% · 99th percentile
  6. 2026-10-05 17:37 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 86% · 99th percentile
  7. 2026-09-30 14:57 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 86% · 99th percentile
  8. 2026-09-29 07:53 UTCEG score recompute
  9. 2026-09-18 19:20 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 86% · 99th percentile
  10. 2026-09-17 19:20 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 86% · 99th percentile
  11. 2026-09-10 09:24 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 86% · 99th percentile
  12. 2026-09-06 13:41 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 86% · 99th percentile
  13. 2026-09-05 15:22 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 86% · 99th percentile
  14. 2026-09-04 13:55 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 86% · 99th percentile
  15. 2026-09-04 04:59 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 86% · 99th percentile
  16. 2026-08-28 21:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 86% · 99th percentile
  17. 2026-08-06 13:41 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 86% · 99th percentile
  18. 2026-08-03 10:28 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 86% · 99th percentile
  19. 2026-07-26 13:36 UTCEG score recomputeFirst assessed: 10.0 HIGH
  20. 2026-07-24 14:12 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 86% · 99th percentile
  21. 2026-07-23 01:04 UTCVendor advisory
  22. 2026-07-23 01:04 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-3fx3-qcjv-qr6h · GitHub severity HIGH
  23. 2026-07-23 01:03 UTCVendor advisory
  24. 2026-07-23 01:03 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-3fx3-qcjv-qr6h · GitHub severity HIGH
  25. 2026-07-23 01:03 UTCVendor advisory
  26. 2026-07-23 01:03 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-3fx3-qcjv-qr6h · GitHub severity HIGH
  27. 2026-07-23 01:02 UTCVendor advisory
  28. 2026-07-23 01:02 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-3fx3-qcjv-qr6h · GitHub severity HIGH
  29. 2026-07-23 01:01 UTCVendor advisory
  30. 2026-07-23 01:01 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-3fx3-qcjv-qr6h · GitHub severity HIGH
  31. 2026-07-23 00:59 UTCVendor advisory
  32. 2026-07-23 00:59 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-3fx3-qcjv-qr6h · GitHub severity HIGH
  33. 2026-07-23 00:58 UTCVendor advisory
  34. 2026-07-23 00:58 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-3fx3-qcjv-qr6h · GitHub severity HIGH
  35. 2026-07-23 00:57 UTCVendor advisory
  36. 2026-07-23 00:57 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-3fx3-qcjv-qr6h · GitHub severity HIGH
  37. 2026-07-23 00:56 UTCVendor advisory
  38. 2026-07-23 00:56 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-3fx3-qcjv-qr6h · GitHub severity HIGH
  39. 2026-07-23 00:55 UTCVendor advisory
  40. 2026-07-23 00:55 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-3fx3-qcjv-qr6h · GitHub severity HIGH
  41. 2026-07-23 00:55 UTCVendor advisory
  42. 2026-07-23 00:54 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-3fx3-qcjv-qr6h · GitHub severity HIGH
  43. 2026-07-23 00:53 UTCVendor advisory
  44. 2026-07-23 00:53 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-3fx3-qcjv-qr6h · GitHub severity HIGH
  45. 2026-07-23 00:52 UTCVendor advisory
  46. 2026-07-23 00:52 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-3fx3-qcjv-qr6h · GitHub severity HIGH
  47. 2026-07-23 00:51 UTCVendor advisory
  48. 2026-07-23 00:51 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-3fx3-qcjv-qr6h · GitHub severity HIGH
  49. 2026-07-23 00:50 UTCVendor advisory
  50. 2026-07-23 00:50 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-3fx3-qcjv-qr6h · GitHub severity HIGH
  51. 2026-07-23 00:49 UTCVendor advisory
  52. 2026-07-23 00:49 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-3fx3-qcjv-qr6h · GitHub severity HIGH
  53. 2026-07-23 00:49 UTCVendor advisory
  54. 2026-07-23 00:48 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-3fx3-qcjv-qr6h · GitHub severity HIGH
  55. 2026-07-23 00:48 UTCVendor advisory
  56. 2026-07-23 00:48 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-3fx3-qcjv-qr6h · GitHub severity HIGH
  57. 2026-07-23 00:47 UTCVendor advisory
  58. 2026-07-23 00:47 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-3fx3-qcjv-qr6h · GitHub severity HIGH
  59. 2026-07-23 00:44 UTCVendor advisory
  60. 2026-07-23 00:44 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-3fx3-qcjv-qr6h · GitHub severity HIGH
  61. 2026-07-23 00:43 UTCVendor advisory
  62. 2026-07-23 00:43 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-3fx3-qcjv-qr6h · GitHub severity HIGH
  63. 2026-07-23 00:43 UTCVendor advisory
  64. 2026-07-23 00:43 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-3fx3-qcjv-qr6h · GitHub severity HIGH
  65. 2026-07-23 00:42 UTCEG score recompute
  66. 2026-07-23 00:42 UTCVendor advisory
  67. 2026-07-23 00:42 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-3fx3-qcjv-qr6h · GitHub severity HIGH
  68. 2026-07-23 00:40 UTCVendor advisory
  69. 2026-07-23 00:40 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-3fx3-qcjv-qr6h · GitHub severity HIGH
  70. 2026-07-23 00:39 UTCVendor advisory
  71. 2026-07-23 00:38 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-3fx3-qcjv-qr6h · GitHub severity HIGH
  72. 2026-07-23 00:36 UTCVendor advisory
  73. 2026-07-23 00:36 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-3fx3-qcjv-qr6h · GitHub severity HIGH
  74. 2026-07-23 00:36 UTCVendor advisory
  75. 2026-07-23 00:36 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-3fx3-qcjv-qr6h · GitHub severity HIGH

Publicly available exploits

(5 references)

Public exploit code is referenced for this CVE (1 Metasploit module, 4 Exploit-DB entries). Defenders should treat patch urgency accordingly.

  • Exploit-DBEDB-16302✓ verified
    Published Jan 8, 2011

    Signed Applet Social Engineering - Code Execution (Metasploit)

    Open source ↗
  • Exploit-DBEDB-16293✓ verified
    Published Sep 20, 2010

    Sun Java - Calendar Deserialization (Metasploit)

    Open source ↗
  • Metasploitexploit/multi/browser/java_calendar_deserialize✓ verified
    Published Jun 16, 2009

    Sun Java Calendar Deserialization Privilege Escalation

    Open source ↗
  • Exploit-DBEDB-8753✓ verified
    Published May 20, 2009

    Apple Mac OSX - Java applet Remote Deserialization Remote (2)

    Open source ↗
  • Exploit-DBEDB-9948✓ verified
    Published Dec 3, 2008

    Sun Java Runtime and Development Kit 6 Update 10 - Calendar Deserialization (Metasploit)

    Open source ↗

Frequently asked(4)

What is CVE-2008-5353?
CVE-2008-5353 is a high-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on December 5, 2008. The Java Runtime Environment (JRE) for Sun JDK and JRE 6 Update 10 and earlier; JDK and JRE 5.0 Update 16 and earlier; and SDK and JRE 1.4.2_18 and earlier does not properly enforce context of ZoneInfo objects during deserialization, which allows remote attackers to run untrusted applets and…
When was CVE-2008-5353 made public?
CVE-2008-5353 was made public on December 3, 2008: that is the date its CVE record's CNA, MITRE Corporation, gives for when the vulnerability was made public. The CVE record itself was published on December 5, 2008. EchelonGraph's copy of the record carries a last-modified date of April 23, 2026; the record at its source may have been updated since.
Is CVE-2008-5353 actively exploited?
CVE-2008-5353 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. EchelonGraph's EG-KEV model places it in Tier 2 (Weaponized), which is not evidence of exploitation: a Metasploit module exists for it, and Exploit-DB marks a public exploit for it as verified. EchelonGraph does not test whether exploit code works. FIRST EPSS estimates a 86% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days (99th percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs).
How do I remediate CVE-2008-5353?
A fix for CVE-2008-5353 is available: update to the fixed version the vendor names in its advisory.

Dependency Blast Radius

Explore the affected products and dependency analysis for CVE-2008-5353

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2008-5353?

EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.