Oracle Communications Security (Spring Framework) CVEs

8 CVEs, 4 protected by Waratek

Look up CVE IDs Status Exploitation Severity

Reset

Overview 8 matches · 4 protected · 0 exploited · 0 CISA KEV · 2 public PoC · 1 EPSS ≥ 0.5

8matches 4protected50.0% 0exploited0.0% 0CISA KEV0.0% 2public PoC25.0% 1EPSS ≥ 0.512.5%

Protected by Waratek 4 50.0% Rule in development 0 0.0% Mitigation candidate 0 0.0% No exploit published 4 50.0%

Critical 0 0.0% High 3 37.5% Medium 4 50.0% Low 1 12.5% None 0 0.0% Unknown 0 0.0%

blocked by ARMR today 4 50.0% partly blocked 0 0.0% not blocked 4 50.0% not established 0 0.0% unrecorded 0 0.0%

Exploited 0 0.0% Working exploit published 2 25.0% Proof of concept only 0 0.0% Forecast only 0 0.0% No public exploit 6 75.0%

split by StatusSeverityProtectionExploit maturity peak 2 / quarter

Q2 221 Protected by Waratek1 Medium1 blocked by ARMR today1 No public exploit1 Q3 220 Q4 220 Q1 230 Q2 231 No exploit published1 Medium1 not blocked1 No public exploit1 Q3 230 Q4 230 Q1 240 Q2 241 Protected by Waratek1 High1 blocked by ARMR today1 No public exploit1 Q3 240 Q4 241 Protected by Waratek1 High1 blocked by ARMR today1 Working exploit published1 Q1 250 Q2 252 No exploit published2 Medium1 Low1 not blocked2 No public exploit2 Q3 252 Protected by Waratek1 No exploit published1 High1 Medium1 blocked by ARMR today1 not blocked1 Working exploit published1 No public exploit1

Q3 22Q1 23Q3 23Q1 24Q3 24Q1 25Q3 25

8 matches Sign in to download these CVEs as CSV or JSON, or to follow them in a feed.

CVE	Severity	Published▾	Status	Exploitation	Description
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-2025-41242	Medium	2025-08-18	Protected by Waratek	Working exploit published	Spring Framework MVC applications can be vulnerable to a “Path Traversal Vulnerability” when deployed on a non-compliant Servlet container. An application can be vulnerable when all the following are true: * the application is deployed as a WAR or with an embedded Servlet container * the Servlet container does not reject suspicious sequences https://jakarta.ee/specifications/servlet/6.1/jakarta-servlet-spec-6.1.html#uri-path-canonicalization * the application serves static resources https://docs.spring.io/spring-framework/reference/web/webmvc/mvc-config/static-resources.html#page-title with Spring resource handling We have verified that applications deployed on Apache Tomcat or Eclipse Jetty are not vulnerable, as long as default security features are not disabled in the configuration. Because we cannot check exploits against all Servlet containers and configuration variants, we strongly recommend upgrading your application.
CVE-2025-41234	Medium	2025-06-12	No exploit published	No public exploit	Description In Spring Framework, versions 6.0.x as of 6.0.5, versions 6.1.x and 6.2.x, an application is vulnerable to a reflected file download (RFD) attack when it sets a “Content-Disposition” header with a non-ASCII charset, where the filename attribute is derived from user-supplied input. Specifically, an application is vulnerable when all the following are true: * The header is prepared with org.springframework.http.ContentDisposition. * The filename is set via ContentDisposition.Builder#filename(String, Charset). * The value for the filename is derived from user-supplied input. * The application does not sanitize the user-supplied input. * The downloaded content of the response is injected with malicious commands by the attacker (see RFD paper reference for details). An application is not vulnerable if any of the following is true: * The application does not set a “Content-Disposition” response header. * The header is not prepared with org.springframework.http.ContentDisposition. * The filename is set via one of: * ContentDisposition.Builder#filename(String), or * ContentDisposition.Builder#filename(String, ASCII) * The filename is not derived from user-supplied input. * The filename is derived from user-supplied input but sanitized by the application. * The attacker cannot inject malicious content in the downloaded content of the response. Affected Spring Products and VersionsSpring Framework: * 6.2.0 - 6.2.7 * 6.1.0 - 6.1.20 * 6.0.5 - 6.0.28 * Older, unsupported versions are not affected MitigationUsers of affected versions should upgrade to the corresponding fixed version. Affected version(s)Fix versionAvailability6.2.x6.2.8OSS6.1.x6.1.21OSS6.0.x6.0.29 Commercial https://enterprise.spring.io/ No further mitigation steps are necessary. CWE-113 in `Content-Disposition` handling in VMware Spring Framework versions 6.0.5 to 6.2.7 allows remote attackers to launch Reflected File Download (RFD) attacks via unsanitized user input in `ContentDisposition.Builder#filename(String, Charset)` with non-ASCII charsets.
CVE-2025-22233	Low	2025-05-16	No exploit published	No public exploit	CVE-2024-38820 ensured Locale-independent, lowercase conversion for both the configured disallowedFields patterns and for request parameter names. However, there are still cases where it is possible to bypass the disallowedFields checks. Affected Spring Products and Versions Spring Framework: * 6.2.0 - 6.2.6 * 6.1.0 - 6.1.19 * 6.0.0 - 6.0.27 * 5.3.0 - 5.3.42 * Older, unsupported versions are also affected Mitigation Users of affected versions should upgrade to the corresponding fixed version. Affected version(s)Fix Version Availability 6.2.x 6.2.7 OSS6.1.x 6.1.20 OSS6.0.x 6.0.28 Commercial https://enterprise.spring.io/ 5.3.x 5.3.43 Commercial https://enterprise.spring.io/ No further mitigation steps are necessary. Generally, we recommend using a dedicated model object with properties only for data binding, or using constructor binding since constructor arguments explicitly declare what to bind together with turning off setter binding through the declarativeBinding flag. See the Model Design section in the reference documentation. For setting binding, prefer the use of allowedFields (an explicit list) over disallowedFields. Credit This issue was responsibly reported by the TERASOLUNA Framework Development Team from NTT DATA Group Corporation.
CVE-2024-38819	High	2024-12-19	Protected by Waratek	Working exploit published	Applications serving static resources through the functional web frameworks WebMvc.fn or WebFlux.fn are vulnerable to path traversal attacks. An attacker can craft malicious HTTP requests and obtain any file on the file system that is also accessible to the process in which the Spring application is running.
CVE-2024-22262	High	2024-04-16	Protected by Waratek	No public exploit	Applications that use UriComponentsBuilder to parse an externally provided URL (e.g. through a query parameter) AND perform validation checks on the host of the parsed URL may be vulnerable to a open redirect https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/601.html attack or to a SSRF attack if the URL is used after passing validation checks. This is the same as CVE-2024-22259 https://spring.io/security/cve-2024-22259 and CVE-2024-22243 https://spring.io/security/cve-2024-22243 , but with different input.
CVE-2023-20863	Medium	2023-04-13	No exploit published	No public exploit	In spring framework versions prior to 5.2.24 release+ ,5.3.27+ and 6.0.8+ , it is possible for a user to provide a specially crafted SpEL expression that may cause a denial-of-service (DoS) condition.
CVE-2022-22971	Medium	2022-05-12	Protected by Waratek	No public exploit	In spring framework versions prior to 5.3.20+ , 5.2.22+ and old unsupported versions, application with a STOMP over WebSocket endpoint is vulnerable to a denial of service attack by an authenticated user.

CVE

Severity

Published▾

Status

Exploitation

Description

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-2025-41242

Medium

2025-08-18

Protected by Waratek

Working exploit published

Spring Framework MVC applications can be vulnerable to a “Path Traversal Vulnerability” when deployed on a non-compliant Servlet container. An application can be vulnerable when all the following are true: * the application is deployed as a WAR or with an embedded Servlet container * the Servlet container does not reject suspicious sequences https://jakarta.ee/specifications/servlet/6.1/jakarta-servlet-spec-6.1.html#uri-path-canonicalization * the application serves static resources https://docs.spring.io/spring-framework/reference/web/webmvc/mvc-config/static-resources.html#page-title with Spring resource handling We have verified that applications deployed on Apache Tomcat or Eclipse Jetty are not vulnerable, as long as default security features are not disabled in the configuration. Because we cannot check exploits against all Servlet containers and configuration variants, we strongly recommend upgrading your application.

CVE-2025-41234

Medium

2025-06-12

No exploit published

No public exploit

Description In Spring Framework, versions 6.0.x as of 6.0.5, versions 6.1.x and 6.2.x, an application is vulnerable to a reflected file download (RFD) attack when it sets a “Content-Disposition” header with a non-ASCII charset, where the filename attribute is derived from user-supplied input. Specifically, an application is vulnerable when all the following are true: * The header is prepared with org.springframework.http.ContentDisposition. * The filename is set via ContentDisposition.Builder#filename(String, Charset). * The value for the filename is derived from user-supplied input. * The application does not sanitize the user-supplied input. * The downloaded content of the response is injected with malicious commands by the attacker (see RFD paper reference for details). An application is not vulnerable if any of the following is true: * The application does not set a “Content-Disposition” response header. * The header is not prepared with org.springframework.http.ContentDisposition. * The filename is set via one of: * ContentDisposition.Builder#filename(String), or * ContentDisposition.Builder#filename(String, ASCII) * The filename is not derived from user-supplied input. * The filename is derived from user-supplied input but sanitized by the application. * The attacker cannot inject malicious content in the downloaded content of the response. Affected Spring Products and VersionsSpring Framework: * 6.2.0 - 6.2.7 * 6.1.0 - 6.1.20 * 6.0.5 - 6.0.28 * Older, unsupported versions are not affected MitigationUsers of affected versions should upgrade to the corresponding fixed version. Affected version(s)Fix versionAvailability6.2.x6.2.8OSS6.1.x6.1.21OSS6.0.x6.0.29 Commercial https://enterprise.spring.io/ No further mitigation steps are necessary. CWE-113 in `Content-Disposition` handling in VMware Spring Framework versions 6.0.5 to 6.2.7 allows remote attackers to launch Reflected File Download (RFD) attacks via unsanitized user input in `ContentDisposition.Builder#filename(String, Charset)` with non-ASCII charsets.

CVE-2025-22233

Low

2025-05-16

No exploit published

No public exploit

CVE-2024-38820 ensured Locale-independent, lowercase conversion for both the configured disallowedFields patterns and for request parameter names. However, there are still cases where it is possible to bypass the disallowedFields checks. Affected Spring Products and Versions Spring Framework: * 6.2.0 - 6.2.6 * 6.1.0 - 6.1.19 * 6.0.0 - 6.0.27 * 5.3.0 - 5.3.42 * Older, unsupported versions are also affected Mitigation Users of affected versions should upgrade to the corresponding fixed version. Affected version(s)Fix Version Availability 6.2.x 6.2.7 OSS6.1.x 6.1.20 OSS6.0.x 6.0.28 Commercial https://enterprise.spring.io/ 5.3.x 5.3.43 Commercial https://enterprise.spring.io/ No further mitigation steps are necessary. Generally, we recommend using a dedicated model object with properties only for data binding, or using constructor binding since constructor arguments explicitly declare what to bind together with turning off setter binding through the declarativeBinding flag. See the Model Design section in the reference documentation. For setting binding, prefer the use of allowedFields (an explicit list) over disallowedFields. Credit This issue was responsibly reported by the TERASOLUNA Framework Development Team from NTT DATA Group Corporation.

CVE-2024-38819

High

2024-12-19

Protected by Waratek

Working exploit published

Applications serving static resources through the functional web frameworks WebMvc.fn or WebFlux.fn are vulnerable to path traversal attacks. An attacker can craft malicious HTTP requests and obtain any file on the file system that is also accessible to the process in which the Spring application is running.

CVE-2024-22262

High

2024-04-16

Protected by Waratek

No public exploit

Applications that use UriComponentsBuilder to parse an externally provided URL (e.g. through a query parameter) AND perform validation checks on the host of the parsed URL may be vulnerable to a open redirect https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/601.html attack or to a SSRF attack if the URL is used after passing validation checks. This is the same as CVE-2024-22259 https://spring.io/security/cve-2024-22259 and CVE-2024-22243 https://spring.io/security/cve-2024-22243 , but with different input.

CVE-2023-20863

Medium

2023-04-13

No exploit published

No public exploit

In spring framework versions prior to 5.2.24 release+ ,5.3.27+ and 6.0.8+ , it is possible for a user to provide a specially crafted SpEL expression that may cause a denial-of-service (DoS) condition.

CVE-2022-22971

Medium

2022-05-12

Protected by Waratek

No public exploit

In spring framework versions prior to 5.3.20+ , 5.2.22+ and old unsupported versions, application with a STOMP over WebSocket endpoint is vulnerable to a denial of service attack by an authenticated user.