CWE-147
Improper Neutralization of Input Terminators
The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could be interpreted as input terminators when they are sent to a downstream component.
CVE-2025-7962 (GCVE-0-2025-7962)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5
Published
2025-07-21 17:22
Modified
2025-07-24 10:18
Severity ?
VLAI Severity ?
EPSS score ?
CWE
- CWE-147 - Improper Neutralization of Input Terminators
Summary
In Jakarta Mail 2.0.2 it is possible to preform a SMTP Injection by utilizing the \r and \n UTF-8 characters to separate different messages.
References
Impacted products
| Vendor | Product | Version | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eclipse Foundation | Jakarta Mail |
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"metrics": [
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2025-7962",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "none"
},
{
"Automatable": "no"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "partial"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2025-07-21T17:41:32.809192Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2025-07-21T17:41:53.288Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"defaultStatus": "unaffected",
"product": "Jakarta Mail",
"vendor": "Eclipse Foundation",
"versions": [
{
"status": "unaffected",
"version": "1.6.8"
},
{
"status": "unaffected",
"version": "2.0.2"
}
]
}
],
"credits": [
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "reporter",
"value": "1ue"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "reporter",
"value": "blu3r"
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"supportingMedia": [
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/html",
"value": "In Jakarta Mail 2.0.2 it is possible to preform a SMTP Injection by utilizing the\u0026nbsp;\\r and \\n UTF-8 characters to separate different messages."
}
],
"value": "In Jakarta Mail 2.0.2 it is possible to preform a SMTP Injection by utilizing the\u00a0\\r and \\n UTF-8 characters to separate different messages."
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV4_0": {
"Automatable": "NOT_DEFINED",
"Recovery": "NOT_DEFINED",
"Safety": "NOT_DEFINED",
"attackComplexity": "HIGH",
"attackRequirements": "NONE",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"baseScore": 6,
"baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
"privilegesRequired": "LOW",
"providerUrgency": "NOT_DEFINED",
"subAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
"subConfidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"subIntegrityImpact": "LOW",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"valueDensity": "NOT_DEFINED",
"vectorString": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:L/SA:N",
"version": "4.0",
"vulnAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
"vulnConfidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"vulnIntegrityImpact": "HIGH",
"vulnerabilityResponseEffort": "NOT_DEFINED"
},
"format": "CVSS",
"scenarios": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "GENERAL"
}
]
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-147",
"description": "CWE-147 Improper Neutralization of Input Terminators",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2025-07-24T10:18:46.544Z",
"orgId": "e51fbebd-6053-4e49-959f-1b94eeb69a2c",
"shortName": "eclipse"
},
"references": [
{
"url": "https://gitlab.eclipse.org/security/cve-assignement/-/issues/67"
}
],
"source": {
"discovery": "EXTERNAL"
},
"x_generator": {
"engine": "Vulnogram 0.2.0"
}
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "e51fbebd-6053-4e49-959f-1b94eeb69a2c",
"assignerShortName": "eclipse",
"cveId": "CVE-2025-7962",
"datePublished": "2025-07-21T17:22:12.520Z",
"dateReserved": "2025-07-21T17:10:58.094Z",
"dateUpdated": "2025-07-24T10:18:46.544Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.1"
}
Mitigation
Phases:
Description:
- Developers should anticipate that terminators will be injected/removed/manipulated in the input vectors of their product. Use an appropriate combination of denylists and allowlists to ensure only valid, expected and appropriate input is processed by the system.
Mitigation ID: MIT-5
Phase: Implementation
Strategy: Input Validation
Description:
- Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
- When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue."
- Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
Mitigation ID: MIT-28
Phase: Implementation
Strategy: Output Encoding
Description:
- While it is risky to use dynamically-generated query strings, code, or commands that mix control and data together, sometimes it may be unavoidable. Properly quote arguments and escape any special characters within those arguments. The most conservative approach is to escape or filter all characters that do not pass an extremely strict allowlist (such as everything that is not alphanumeric or white space). If some special characters are still needed, such as white space, wrap each argument in quotes after the escaping/filtering step. Be careful of argument injection (CWE-88).
Mitigation ID: MIT-20
Phase: Implementation
Strategy: Input Validation
Description:
- Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist validation schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked.
CAPEC-460: HTTP Parameter Pollution (HPP)
An adversary adds duplicate HTTP GET/POST parameters by injecting query string delimiters. Via HPP it may be possible to override existing hardcoded HTTP parameters, modify the application behaviors, access and, potentially exploit, uncontrollable variables, and bypass input validation checkpoints and WAF rules.