CVE-2025-24813 False Positive In Tomcat 9.0.106?

by Alex Johnson 49 views

This article addresses a reported false positive regarding CVE-2025-24813 in Apache Tomcat version 9.0.106. Users have observed that vulnerability scanners, specifically OWASP Dependency-Check (ODC), are flagging this version as vulnerable, despite the fix being implemented in version 9.0.99. This situation can cause significant concern and requires a thorough understanding of the issue to resolve it effectively.

Understanding the Issue

The core of the problem lies in the discrepancy between the reported fix and the scanner's detection logic. While the vulnerability, CVE-2025-24813, was addressed in Tomcat 9.0.99, some vulnerability scanners might still identify it in later versions like 9.0.106. This discrepancy can arise from several factors, including:

  • Scanner Database Lag: Vulnerability databases used by scanners might not be up-to-date with the latest fixes. This delay can lead to false positives, where a fixed vulnerability is still reported.
  • Version Range Overlap: The scanner's rules might include a version range that inadvertently includes the fixed version. For example, the rule might flag all versions in the 9.0.x series, without specifically excluding those with the fix.
  • Incorrect CPE/PURL Matching: The Common Platform Enumeration (CPE) and Package URL (PURL) identifiers used by the scanner might not accurately reflect the patched version. Mismatches in these identifiers can lead to incorrect vulnerability reports.
  • Code Similarity: In some instances, scanners rely on pattern matching or code analysis to detect vulnerabilities. If the patched version contains code similar to the vulnerable version, it might trigger a false positive.

Identifying the false positive requires a meticulous approach. Firstly, it is crucial to verify the fix in the official Tomcat changelog or security advisories. Secondly, one should examine the specific vulnerability report generated by the scanner to understand the basis of the finding. This involves scrutinizing the CPE and PURL identifiers, the matched rules, and any associated vulnerability descriptions. By carefully analyzing these details, one can discern whether the report stems from an outdated database, a faulty rule, or a code similarity issue.

Detailed Report

The user report highlights the following details:

  • Package URL: pkg:maven/org.apache.tomcat/tomcat-servlet-api@9.0.106
  • CPE: cpe:2.3:a:apache_tomcat:apache_tomcat:9.0.106:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • CVE: CVE-2025-24813
  • ODC Version: 12.1.9

This information indicates that OWASP Dependency-Check version 12.1.9 is flagging the tomcat-servlet-api version 9.0.106 as vulnerable to CVE-2025-24813. Given that the vulnerability was supposedly fixed in Tomcat 9.0.99, this report raises concerns about a potential false positive. The presence of both the PURL and CPE entries underscores that the scanner is identifying the vulnerability based on conventional package and platform identifiers. However, these identifiers alone do not confirm the vulnerability's actual presence, thus necessitating further investigation.

Investigating the False Positive

To confirm whether this is indeed a false positive, several steps need to be taken:

  1. Verify the Fix: Check the official Apache Tomcat security advisories and changelogs to confirm that CVE-2025-24813 was indeed fixed in version 9.0.99.
  2. Review Scanner Database: Examine the vulnerability database used by OWASP Dependency-Check to see when the fix for CVE-2025-24813 was incorporated and if there are any known issues with the detection rule.
  3. Analyze Scanner Configuration: Review the ODC configuration to ensure that the rules and filters are correctly set up and not inadvertently flagging the fixed version.
  4. Check CPE/PURL Mapping: Verify that the CPE and PURL mappings used by ODC accurately reflect the patched version of Tomcat. Any discrepancies in these mappings can lead to false positives.
  5. Examine Vulnerability Details: Delve into the vulnerability report generated by ODC to understand the specific reason for flagging the version. This might provide clues about the detection logic used and whether it's based on outdated information or code similarity.

By taking these investigative steps, one can systematically determine the root cause of the false positive and implement appropriate corrective actions. This thorough approach is crucial for maintaining confidence in the vulnerability scanning process and avoiding unnecessary alarm from inaccurate reports.

Potential Solutions

If the investigation confirms a false positive, the following solutions can be considered:

  • Update Scanner Database: If the scanner database is outdated, updating it to the latest version should resolve the issue.
  • Suppress False Positive: Most vulnerability scanners allow you to suppress false positive findings. This involves marking the specific instance as a false positive so that it is no longer reported in future scans. However, this should be done cautiously and only after thorough verification.
  • Customize Scanner Rules: If the scanner rule is too broad, it can be customized to exclude the fixed version. This requires a good understanding of the scanner's rule syntax and the specific conditions that trigger the false positive.
  • Report to Scanner Vendor: If the false positive is due to an issue in the scanner's detection logic or database, reporting it to the vendor can help them improve their tool and prevent similar issues in the future.

Implementing these solutions necessitates a nuanced understanding of the scanning tool and its interaction with the codebase. Updating the scanner database is typically the first line of defense, as it ensures the tool operates with the most current vulnerability information. However, in cases where the database is up-to-date, suppressing false positives becomes a pragmatic approach. This involves carefully documenting the rationale behind the suppression to prevent future misinterpretations. Customizing scanner rules is a more advanced tactic that demands expertise in the scanner's rule syntax and a deep understanding of the vulnerability's context. Finally, reporting the false positive to the scanner vendor serves not only to rectify the immediate issue but also to contribute to the long-term accuracy and reliability of the scanning tool. Each of these solutions, when applied judiciously, contributes to a robust vulnerability management strategy.

Importance of Accurate Vulnerability Scanning

Accurate vulnerability scanning is crucial for maintaining the security of applications and systems. False positives can lead to wasted time and resources investigating non-existent vulnerabilities, while false negatives can leave systems exposed to real threats. Therefore, it is essential to have a reliable vulnerability scanning process in place, which includes:

  • Regular Scanning: Performing vulnerability scans regularly to identify new vulnerabilities as they emerge.
  • Up-to-Date Databases: Ensuring that the vulnerability databases used by scanners are up-to-date with the latest information.
  • Proper Configuration: Configuring scanners correctly to minimize false positives and negatives.
  • Verification of Findings: Verifying all vulnerability findings to ensure their accuracy.
  • Timely Remediation: Addressing identified vulnerabilities in a timely manner.

The cornerstone of a robust security posture lies in the diligence and thoroughness of the vulnerability scanning process. Regular scans serve as the first line of defense, providing continuous monitoring for emerging threats. Maintaining up-to-date databases is paramount, as outdated information can render scans ineffective. Proper configuration of scanning tools ensures that the scans are both comprehensive and accurate, minimizing the noise of false positives. Verifying findings is a critical step in distinguishing actual vulnerabilities from misidentified issues, thus conserving valuable resources. Finally, timely remediation underscores the proactive nature of security, addressing vulnerabilities before they can be exploited. Each of these elements, when harmonized, contributes to a resilient security ecosystem, safeguarding applications and systems from potential breaches.

Conclusion

The reported false positive for CVE-2025-24813 in Tomcat 9.0.106 highlights the importance of verifying vulnerability scan results. While vulnerability scanners are valuable tools, they are not foolproof and can sometimes produce inaccurate findings. By following the steps outlined in this article, you can effectively investigate and address false positives, ensuring that your systems are protected against real threats.

For more information on vulnerability scanning and management, you can visit resources like the OWASP Foundation. This external resource provides a wealth of information on web application security and related topics.