Overview 18 matches · 17 in Waratek scope · 1 protected · 0 exploited · 0 CISA KEV · 1 public PoC · 1 EPSS ≥ 0.5
18matches
17in Waratek scope94.4%
1protected5.6%
0exploited0.0%
0CISA KEV0.0%
1public PoC5.6%
1EPSS ≥ 0.55.6%
Protected by Waratek
1
5.6%
Rule in development
0
0.0%
Mitigation candidate
0
0.0%
No exploit published
16
88.9%
Outside Waratek scope
1
5.6%
Not applicable
0
0.0%
Withdrawn CVE
0
0.0%
blocked by ARMR today
1
5.6%
partly blocked
0
0.0%
not blocked
17
94.4%
not established
0
0.0%
unrecorded
0
0.0%
Exploited
0
0.0%
Working exploit published
0
0.0%
Proof of concept only
1
5.6%
Forecast only
0
0.0%
No public exploit
17
94.4%
split by
peak 16 / year
2020202120222023202420252026
| CVE | Severity | Published▾ | Status | Exploitation | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-41855 | Critical | 2026-06-09 | No exploit published | No public exploit | In an untrusted JMS environment, org.springframework.jms.support.converter.MappingJackson2MessageConverter and org.springframework.jms.support.converter.JacksonJsonMessageConverter allow arbitrary class instantiation, which can lead to unauthorized actions via gadget class deserialization. Affected versions: Spring Framework 7.0.0 through 7.0.7; 6.2.0 through 6.2.18; 6.1.0 through 6.1.27; 5.3.0 through 5.3.48. |
| CVE-2026-41854 | Medium | 2026-06-09 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Due to incorrect host parsing, applications that rely on UriComponentsBuilder to parse and validate an externally provided URL string may be exposed to a server-side request forgery (SSRF) attack. Affected versions: Spring Framework 7.0.0 through 7.0.7; 6.2.0 through 6.2.18. |
| CVE-2026-41853 | Medium | 2026-06-09 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Spring MVC and WebFlux applications are vulnerable to Multipart request smuggling attacks. Affected versions: Spring Framework 7.0.0 through 7.0.7; 6.2.0 through 6.2.18; 6.1.0 through 6.1.27; 5.3.0 through 5.3.48. |
| CVE-2026-41852 | Medium | 2026-06-09 | No exploit published | No public exploit | A vulnerability in Spring Expression Language (SpEL) evaluation logic allows for arbitrary zero-argument method invocation, even within restricted or read-only contexts, which may allow an attacker to invoke unintended application logic. Affected versions: Spring Framework 7.0.0 through 7.0.7; 6.2.0 through 6.2.18; 6.1.0 through 6.1.27; 5.3.0 through 5.3.48. |
| CVE-2026-41851 | High | 2026-06-09 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Applications which accept user-supplied Spring Expression Language (SpEL) expressions may be vulnerable to a Denial of Service (DoS) attack if the evaluation of a SpEL expression triggers unbounded cache growth. Affected versions: Spring Framework 7.0.0 through 7.0.7; 6.2.0 through 6.2.18; 6.1.0 through 6.1.27; 5.3.0 through 5.3.48. |
| CVE-2026-41850 | High | 2026-06-09 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Applications that evaluate user-supplied Spring Expression Language (SpEL) expressions are vulnerable to an Algorithmic Denial of Service (DoS). By providing a specially crafted expression, an attacker can trigger excessive resource consumption during evaluation, leading to application degradation or unavailability. Affected versions: Spring Framework 7.0.0 through 7.0.7; 6.2.0 through 6.2.18; 6.1.0 through 6.1.27; 5.3.0 through 5.3.48. |
| CVE-2026-41848 | High | 2026-06-09 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Applications may be vulnerable to a Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) attack if an attacker is able to provide a pattern which is then directly or indirectly supplied to one of the following methods in AntPathMatcher: match(String pattern, String path), matchStart(String pattern, String path), extractUriTemplateVariables(String pattern, String path). Affected versions: Spring Framework 7.0.0 through 7.0.7; 6.2.0 through 6.2.18; 6.1.0 through 6.1.27; 5.3.0 through 5.3.48. |
| CVE-2026-41846 | Medium | 2026-06-09 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Spring MVC applications which accept user-supplied values in the cssClass, cssErrorClass, or cssStyle attributes of JSP form tags allow arbitrary HTML/JavaScript code injection, potentially resulting in a cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability. Affected versions: Spring Framework 7.0.0 through 7.0.7; 6.2.0 through 6.2.18; 6.1.0 through 6.1.27; 5.3.0 through 5.3.48. |
| CVE-2026-41845 | High | 2026-06-09 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Due to incorrect escaping, the use of JavaScriptUtils.javaScriptEscape() may lead to JavaScript code injection in the browser, potentially resulting in a cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability. Affected versions: Spring Framework 7.0.0 through 7.0.7; 6.2.0 through 6.2.18; 6.1.0 through 6.1.27; 5.3.0 through 5.3.48. |
| CVE-2026-41844 | Medium | 2026-06-09 | No exploit published | No public exploit | A Spring MVC or Spring WebFlux application which configures a mapping for "/**" where the view name is not explicitly specified allows an attacker to craft a link resulting in a 302 redirect to an arbitrary external host via the redirect: prefix. Affected versions: Spring Framework 7.0.0 through 7.0.7; 6.2.0 through 6.2.18; 6.1.0 through 6.1.27; 5.3.0 through 5.3.48. |
| CVE-2026-41843 | Medium | 2026-06-09 | Protected by Waratek | No public exploit | Spring MVC and WebFlux applications are vulnerable to Path Traversal attacks when resolving static resources. Affected versions: Spring Framework 7.0.0 through 7.0.7; 6.2.0 through 6.2.18; 6.1.0 through 6.1.27; 5.3.0 through 5.3.48. |
| CVE-2026-41842 | High | 2026-06-09 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Spring MVC and WebFlux applications are vulnerable to Denial of Service (DoS) attacks when resolving static resources. Affected versions: Spring Framework 7.0.0 through 7.0.7; 6.2.0 through 6.2.18; 6.1.0 through 6.1.27; 5.3.0 through 5.3.48. |
| CVE-2026-41841 | Medium | 2026-06-09 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Spring MVC and WebFlux applications are vulnerable to Information Disclosure attacks when resolving static resources. Affected versions: Spring Framework 7.0.0 through 7.0.7; 6.2.0 through 6.2.18; 6.1.0 through 6.1.27; 5.3.0 through 5.3.48. |
| CVE-2026-41840 | Medium | 2026-06-09 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Spring WebFlux applications are vulnerable to Denial of Service (DoS) attacks when processing multipart requests. Affected versions: Spring Framework 7.0.0 through 7.0.7, 6.2.0 through 6.2.18, 6.1.0 through 6.1.27, 5.3.0 through 5.3.48. |
| CVE-2026-41839 | Medium | 2026-06-09 | No exploit published | No public exploit | A WebFlux application with a compromised subdomain (for example, compromised via cross-site scripting (XSS)) is vulnerable to an escalation attack exchanging a known session ID for that of an authenticated user. Affected versions: Spring Framework 7.0.0 through 7.0.7; 6.2.0 through 6.2.18; 6.1.0 through 6.1.27; 5.3.0 through 5.3.48. |
| CVE-2026-41838 | High | 2026-06-09 | No exploit published | No public exploit | IDs for WebSocket sessions in the spring-websocket module are not cryptographically unpredictable, which may be possible to exploit in combination with inadequate authorization rules. Affected versions: Spring Framework 7.0.0 through 7.0.7; 6.2.0 through 6.2.18; 6.1.0 through 6.1.27; 5.3.0 through 5.3.48. |
| CVE-2025-41249 | High | 2025-09-16 | No exploit published | No public exploit | The Spring Framework annotation detection mechanism may not correctly resolve annotations on methods within type hierarchies with a parameterized super type with unbounded generics. This can be an issue if such annotations are used for authorization decisions. Your application may be affected by this if you are using Spring Security's @EnableMethodSecurity feature. You are not affected by this if you are not using @EnableMethodSecurity or if you do not use security annotations on methods in generic superclasses or generic interfaces. This CVE is published in conjunction with CVE-2025-41248 https://spring.io/security/cve-2025-41248 . |
| CVE-2020-5398 | High | 2020-01-17 | Outside Waratek scope | Proof of concept only | In Spring Framework, versions 5.2.x prior to 5.2.3, versions 5.1.x prior to 5.1.13, and versions 5.0.x prior to 5.0.16, an application is vulnerable to a reflected file download (RFD) attack when it sets a "Content-Disposition" header in the response where the filename attribute is derived from user supplied input. |