Incorrect behavior order in Apache Wicket: a file path is validated before the framework appends the attributes that complete it.
org.apache.wicket.request.resource.PackageResource asks the configured package resource guard about a path built from the scope class' package and the file name in the request URL, and then hands that same path to the resource stream locator together with a style, a variation and a locale. Those three attributes are decoded from the name of the first query parameter and never appear in the string the guard was given. org.apache.wicket.core.util.resource.locator.ResourceNameIterator appends them to that path, each preceded by an underscore, in the order variation, style, locale, before the file extension, so the file that is opened is not the file the guard approved.
org.apache.wicket.markup.html.PackageResourceGuard decides whether an HTML file is a component's markup template by looking for a class file of the same name beside it, stripping one underscore-delimited suffix at a time as it goes. HTML is on the default allow list, so that check is the only thing separating a static HTML file, which may be served, from a markup template, which may not. Asked about the name of a template, the guard refuses it correctly. Asked about a shorter name for which no class exists, it accepts, and a style supplied in the URL then completes that name into the markup template of a component class, which is written to the response.
An application is affected if the simple name of any of its component classes contains an underscore and no shorter part of that name is itself a class, such as Report_v2 or Wizard_Step1; an application with no such class name is not affected. No unusual deployment, packaging or configuration is required, and running in deployment rather than development mode does not prevent it. Java naming conventions discourage underscores in class names and no module Wicket ships has one, so no framework markup is exposed; what an application exposes this way is its own. A component whose class name has no underscore is not reachable, and neither is its localized or styled markup, because the guard finds the class file under the base name and refuses the request. The attributes cannot change the file extension and cannot leave the component's package, so nothing beyond HTML files in that package is reachable. Access is read-only, and 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. No user data, credential or session material is reachable this way. An attacker has to name a class in the target package and the component itself, 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