WaratekVRT Sign in

Org.springframework Spring-core CVEs with no public exploit

16 CVEs, 3 protected by Waratek

Reset
More filters (2)
Columns
Vendor org.springframework✕Product spring-core✕
Overview 16 matches · 3 protected · 0 exploited · 0 CISA KEV · 0 public PoC · 0 EPSS ≥ 0.5
16matches 3protected18.8% 0exploited0.0% 0CISA KEV0.0% 0public PoC0.0% 0EPSS ≥ 0.50.0%
Protected by Waratek 3 18.8% Rule in development 0 0.0% Mitigation candidate 0 0.0% No exploit published 13 81.2%
Critical 1 6.2% High 8 50.0% Medium 7 43.8% Low 0 0.0% None 0 0.0% Unknown 0 0.0%
blocked by ARMR today 3 18.8% partly blocked 0 0.0% not blocked 13 81.2% not established 0 0.0% unrecorded 0 0.0%
Exploited 0 0.0% Working exploit published 0 0.0% Proof of concept only 0 0.0% Forecast only 0 0.0% No public exploit 16 100.0%
split by peak 5 / year
No exploit published: 13Protected by Waratek: 3 Medium: 7High: 8Critical: 1 not blocked: 13blocked by ARMR today: 3 No public exploit: 16
20091 No exploit published1 Medium1 not blocked1 No public exploit1 20100 20110 20121 No exploit published1 High1 not blocked1 No public exploit1 20130 20140 20152 Protected by Waratek2 Medium2 blocked by ARMR today2 No public exploit2 20160 20172 No exploit published2 Critical1 High1 not blocked2 No public exploit2 20185 Protected by Waratek1 No exploit published4 High3 Medium2 blocked by ARMR today1 not blocked4 No public exploit5 20190 20200 20211 No exploit published1 Medium1 not blocked1 No public exploit1 20221 No exploit published1 Medium1 not blocked1 No public exploit1 20230 20241 No exploit published1 High1 not blocked1 No public exploit1 20251 No exploit published1 High1 not blocked1 No public exploit1 20261 No exploit published1 High1 not blocked1 No public exploit1
201020122014201620182020202220242026
16 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-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-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-2024-22233 High 2024-01-22 No exploit published No public exploit In Spring Framework versions 6.0.15 and 6.1.2, it is possible for a user to provide specially crafted HTTP requests that may cause a denial-of-service (DoS) condition. Specifically, an application is vulnerable when all of the following are true: * the application uses Spring MVC * Spring Security 6.1.6+ or 6.2.1+ is on the classpath Typically, Spring Boot applications need the org.springframework.boot:spring-boot-starter-web and org.springframework.boot:spring-boot-starter-security dependencies to meet all conditions.
CVE-2021-22060 Medium 2022-01-10 No exploit published No public exploit In Spring Framework versions 5.3.0 - 5.3.13, 5.2.0 - 5.2.18, and older unsupported versions, it is possible for a user to provide malicious input to cause the insertion of additional log entries. This is a follow-up to CVE-2021-22096 that protects against additional types of input and in more places of the Spring Framework codebase.
CVE-2021-22096 Medium 2021-10-28 No exploit published No public exploit In Spring Framework versions 5.3.0 - 5.3.10, 5.2.0 - 5.2.17, and older unsupported versions, it is possible for a user to provide malicious input to cause the insertion of additional log entries.
CVE-2018-11040 High 2018-06-25 No exploit published No public exploit Spring Framework, versions 5.0.x prior to 5.0.7 and 4.3.x prior to 4.3.18 and older unsupported versions, allows web applications to enable cross-domain requests via JSONP (JSON with Padding) through AbstractJsonpResponseBodyAdvice for REST controllers and MappingJackson2JsonView for browser requests. Both are not enabled by default in Spring Framework nor Spring Boot, however, when MappingJackson2JsonView is configured in an application, JSONP support is automatically ready to use through the "jsonp" and "callback" JSONP parameters, enabling cross-domain requests.
CVE-2018-1258 High 2018-05-11 No exploit published No public exploit Spring Framework version 5.0.5 when used in combination with any versions of Spring Security contains an authorization bypass when using method security. An unauthorized malicious user can gain unauthorized access to methods that should be restricted.
CVE-2018-1257 Medium 2018-05-11 No exploit published No public exploit Spring Framework, versions 5.0.x prior to 5.0.6, versions 4.3.x prior to 4.3.17, and older unsupported versions allows applications to expose STOMP over WebSocket endpoints with a simple, in-memory STOMP broker through the spring-messaging module. A malicious user (or attacker) can craft a message to the broker that can lead to a regular expression, denial of service attack.
CVE-2018-1272 High 2018-04-06 Protected by Waratek No public exploit Spring Framework, versions 5.0 prior to 5.0.5 and versions 4.3 prior to 4.3.15 and older unsupported versions, provide client-side support for multipart requests. When Spring MVC or Spring WebFlux server application (server A) receives input from a remote client, and then uses that input to make a multipart request to another server (server B), it can be exposed to an attack, where an extra multipart is inserted in the content of the request from server A, causing server B to use the wrong value for a part it expects. This could to lead privilege escalation, for example, if the part content represents a username or user roles.
CVE-2018-1199 Medium 2018-03-16 No exploit published No public exploit Spring Security (Spring Security 4.1.x before 4.1.5, 4.2.x before 4.2.4, and 5.0.x before 5.0.1; and Spring Framework 4.3.x before 4.3.14 and 5.0.x before 5.0.3) does not consider URL path parameters when processing security constraints. By adding a URL path parameter with special encodings, an attacker may be able to bypass a security constraint. The root cause of this issue is a lack of clarity regarding the handling of path parameters in the Servlet Specification. Some Servlet containers include path parameters in the value returned for getPathInfo() and some do not. Spring Security uses the value returned by getPathInfo() as part of the process of mapping requests to security constraints. In this particular attack, different character encodings used in path parameters allows secured Spring MVC static resource URLs to be bypassed.
CVE-2016-5007 High 2017-05-25 No exploit published No public exploit Both Spring Security 3.2.x, 4.0.x, 4.1.0 and the Spring Framework 3.2.x, 4.0.x, 4.1.x, 4.2.x rely on URL pattern mappings for authorization and for mapping requests to controllers respectively. Differences in the strictness of the pattern matching mechanisms, for example with regards to space trimming in path segments, can lead Spring Security to not recognize certain paths as not protected that are in fact mapped to Spring MVC controllers that should be protected. The problem is compounded by the fact that the Spring Framework provides richer features with regards to pattern matching as well as by the fact that pattern matching in each Spring Security and the Spring Framework can easily be customized creating additional differences.
CVE-2015-5211 Critical 2017-05-25 No exploit published No public exploit Under some situations, the Spring Framework 4.2.0 to 4.2.1, 4.0.0 to 4.1.7, 3.2.0 to 3.2.14 and older unsupported versions is vulnerable to a Reflected File Download (RFD) attack. The attack involves a malicious user crafting a URL with a batch script extension that results in the response being downloaded rather than rendered and also includes some input reflected in the response.
CVE-2015-0201 Medium 2015-03-10 Protected by Waratek No public exploit The Java SockJS client in Pivotal Spring Framework 4.1.x before 4.1.5 generates predictable session ids, which allows remote attackers to send messages to other sessions via unspecified vectors.
CVE-2014-3578 Medium 2015-02-19 Protected by Waratek No public exploit Directory traversal vulnerability in Pivotal Spring Framework 3.x before 3.2.9 and 4.0 before 4.0.5 allows remote attackers to read arbitrary files via a crafted URL.
CVE-2011-2730 High 2012-12-05 No exploit published No public exploit VMware SpringSource Spring Framework before 2.5.6.SEC03, 2.5.7.SR023, and 3.x before 3.0.6, when a container supports Expression Language (EL), evaluates EL expressions in tags twice, which allows remote attackers to obtain sensitive information via a (1) name attribute in a (a) spring:hasBindErrors tag; (2) path attribute in a (b) spring:bind or (c) spring:nestedpath tag; (3) arguments, (4) code, (5) text, (6) var, (7) scope, or (8) message attribute in a (d) spring:message or (e) spring:theme tag; or (9) var, (10) scope, or (11) value attribute in a (f) spring:transform tag, aka "Expression Language Injection."
CVE-2009-1190 Medium 2009-04-27 No exploit published No public exploit Algorithmic complexity vulnerability in the java.util.regex.Pattern.compile method in Sun Java Development Kit (JDK) before 1.6, when used with spring.jar in SpringSource Spring Framework 1.1.0 through 2.5.6 and 3.0.0.M1 through 3.0.0.M2 and dm Server 1.0.0 through 1.0.2, allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (CPU consumption) via serializable data with a long regex string containing multiple optional groups, a related issue to CVE-2004-2540.