Files accessible to external parties in Apache Wicket.
org.apache.wicket.markup.html.PackageResourceGuard decides whether a file on the classpath may be streamed to a client as a package resource. HTML is on the default allow list, so the only thing that separates a static HTML file, which may be served, from a component's markup template, which may not, is a check for a class file of the same name beside it. That check calls getResource() on the class loader that loaded wicket-core. The resource itself is reached through different class loaders: the scope class is resolved through the application's IClassResolver, which uses the thread context class loader, and org.apache.wicket.core.util.resource.ClassPathResourceFinder#find() then tries the scope class' own loader, the context class loader, and the wicket-core loader last.
Where wicket-core is loaded by a class loader that cannot see the application's classes, the check finds no class file, concludes the file is not a component markup template, and serves it. A request for the package resource URL of a component class then returns that component's markup template with status 200. What is disclosed is developer-authored template content: component structure, developer comments, markup that is rendered only under some conditions, inline script, and the endpoints a template names. Access is read-only, and no user data, credential or session material is reachable this way.
Such a deployment is rare. The ordinary packaging, a web archive with wicket-core in WEB-INF/lib, puts the framework and the application in one class loader, so the check finds the class file and the template is refused; those deployments are not affected. The exposure is confined to deployments that give wicket-core a class loader which cannot see the application's component classes: wicket-core placed in a servlet container's shared library directory, in an enterprise archive library directory with the application in the web archive, as an application server global module, or as an OSGi bundle, where wicket-core's bundle cannot resolve a class held by an application bundle. Markup shipped by Wicket's own modules, and by any other code sharing a class loader with wicket-core, remains protected. An attacker has to name a component class, and Wicket writes fully qualified class names into the URL of every package resource it renders.
This issue affects Apache Wicket: from 8.0.0 through 8.19.0, from 9.0.0 through 9.24.0, from 10.0.0 through 10.11.0. Users of Apache Wicket 7.x or older, which are no longer supported, should upgrade to a supported version. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 8.20.0, 9.25.0 or 10.12.0, which fix the issue.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (6.3): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 6.3 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 6.3 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.a secondary CVSS source · CVSS v3.0 or v3.1
- EG Likelihood
- Unknown (no EPSS on record)Unknown, not low: FIRST has published no EPSS probability for this CVE.
- 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 every mission impact level.CISA BOD 26-04: 60 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 every mission impact level.
The CVE record names the fixed release. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact partial (CVSS v4.0 confidentiality and integrity impact neither High). 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)60 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 partial (CVSS v4.0 confidentiality and integrity impact neither High). 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