CVE Intelligence
Skip to main content
MEDIUM

CVE-2026-59888

CVE-2026-59888 — jackson-databind: @JsonIgnore on a Record property is bypassed with a PropertyNamingStrategy

jackson-databind contains the general-purpose data-binding functionality and tree-model for Jackson Data Processor. From 2.15.0 until 2.18.8, 2.21.4, and 3.1.4, Java Records using a PropertyNamingStrategy can bypass @JsonIgnore because POJOPropertiesCollector._removeUnwantedIgnorals() records an ignored component under its original implicit name before _renameUsing() applies the naming strategy, allowing the renamed JSON key to be assigned to the Record constructor parameter. This issue is fixed in versions 2.18.8, 2.21.4, and 3.1.4.

Published Updated Sources: cvelistV5, GitHub_M

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the scoring sources call it.

Exploitation

Unreported

no source claims exploitation

EPSS

0%

chance of exploitation in 30 days

Affects

fasterxml

jackson_databind

CVSS base

6.5

MEDIUM

CISA SSVC assessment

Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses · SSVC 2.0.3. A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.

CISA

Exploitation

None

none · proof-of-concept · active

Automatable

Yes

can an attacker script all four kill-chain steps

Technical impact

Partial

partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Affected scope

The catalog records vendors and products as separate lists, not pairs, so which product belongs to which vendor is not something this page can say.

Vendors (1)

fasterxml

Products (1)

jackson databind

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactSource
6.5CVSS 3.1MEDIUM——cvelistV5

Weakness & attack patterns

  • CWE-915

References

4 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

  • No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
  • No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
  • No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.