Spring CVEs
80 CVEs, 2 exploited, 29 protected by Waratek
Overview 80 matches · 29 protected · 2 exploited · 1 CISA KEV · 10 public PoC · 7 EPSS ≥ 0.5
Protected by Waratek
29
36.2%
Rule in development
0
0.0%
Mitigation candidate
0
0.0%
No exploit published
51
63.8%
blocked by ARMR today
29
36.2%
partly blocked
0
0.0%
not blocked
51
63.8%
not established
0
0.0%
unrecorded
0
0.0%
split by
peak 26 / year
20091
No exploit published1
Medium1
not blocked1
No public exploit1
20101
Protected by Waratek1
Medium1
blocked by ARMR today1
Working exploit published1
20111
Protected by Waratek1
Medium1
blocked by ARMR today1
Proof of concept only1
20121
No exploit published1
High1
not blocked1
No public exploit1
20130
20146
Protected by Waratek5
No exploit published1
Medium6
blocked by ARMR today5
not blocked1
Proof of concept only1
Forecast only2
No public exploit3
20152
Protected by Waratek2
Medium2
blocked by ARMR today2
No public exploit2
20162
Protected by Waratek2
High1
Medium1
blocked by ARMR today2
No public exploit2
20173
Protected by Waratek1
No exploit published2
Critical1
High2
blocked by ARMR today1
not blocked2
No public exploit3
20189
Protected by Waratek4
No exploit published5
Critical2
High3
Medium4
blocked by ARMR today4
not blocked5
Working exploit published1
Proof of concept only1
Forecast only1
No public exploit6
20190
20203
Protected by Waratek2
No exploit published1
Critical1
Medium2
blocked by ARMR today2
not blocked1
Proof of concept only1
No public exploit2
20212
Protected by Waratek1
No exploit published1
High1
Medium1
blocked by ARMR today1
not blocked1
No public exploit2
20226
Protected by Waratek3
No exploit published3
Critical1
Medium5
blocked by ARMR today3
not blocked3
Exploited1
No public exploit5
20234
No exploit published4
High2
Medium2
not blocked4
No public exploit4
20248
Protected by Waratek5
No exploit published3
High5
Medium3
blocked by ARMR today5
not blocked3
Exploited1
Working exploit published1
No public exploit6
20255
Protected by Waratek1
No exploit published4
High1
Medium3
Low1
blocked by ARMR today1
not blocked4
Working exploit published1
No public exploit4
202626
Protected by Waratek1
No exploit published25
Critical4
High7
Medium13
Low2
blocked by ARMR today1
not blocked25
No public exploit26
201020122014201620182020202220242026
| CVE | Severity | Published▾ | Status | Exploitation | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-47892 | Critical | 2026-08-27 | No exploit published | No public exploit | A WebFlux application using functional endpoints and deployed with DispatcherServlet may be vulnerable to a header predicate bypass in a pre-flight request. Spring Framework 7.0.0 - 7.0.8 Spring Framework 6.2.0 - 6.2.19 Spring Framework 6.1.0 - 6.1.28 Spring Framework 6.0.0 - 6.0.30 Spring Framework 5.3.0 - 5.3.49 Spring Framework 5.2.5.RELEASE - 5.2.25.RELEASE |
| CVE-2026-47890 | Critical | 2026-08-27 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Spring MVC and WebFlux applications are vulnerable to stream corruption when using Server-Sent Events (SSE) with view fragments. Spring Framework 7.0.0 - 7.0.8 Spring Framework 6.2.0 - 6.2.19 |
| CVE-2026-47884 | Critical | 2026-08-27 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Use of XsltView in a Spring MVC application can result in SSRF and RCE attack if the application has an "/**" mapping that results in view rendering, and where the view name is not explicitly specified. Spring Framework 7.0.0 - 7.0.8 Spring Framework 6.2.0 - 6.2.19 Spring Framework 6.1.0 - 6.1.28 Spring Framework 6.0.0 - 6.0.30 Spring Framework 5.3.0 - 5.3.49 Spring Framework 5.2.25.RELEASE and earlier |
| 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-2026-41849 | High | 2026-06-09 | No exploit published | No public exploit | An integer overflow vulnerability exists in the evaluation logic of the Spring Expression Language (SpEL). An attacker can exploit this by supplying a specially crafted SpEL expression that triggers excessive resource consumption, resulting in a Denial of Service (DoS). Affected versions: Spring Framework 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-2026-41847 | Medium | 2026-06-09 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Spring WebFlux applications may be vulnerable to a security bypass when using the Kotlin Router DSL. Affected versions: Spring Framework 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-2026-22745 | Medium | 2026-04-29 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Spring MVC and WebFlux applications are vulnerable to Denial of Service attacks when resolving static resources. More precisely, an application can be vulnerable when all the following are true: * the application is using Spring MVC or Spring WebFlux * the application is serving static resources from the file system * the application is running on a Windows platform When all the conditions above are met, the attacker can send malicious requests that are slow to resolve and that can keep HTTP connections in use. This can cause a Denial of Service on the application. |
| CVE-2026-22741 | Low | 2026-04-29 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Spring MVC and WebFlux applications are vulnerable to cache poisoning when resolving static resources. More precisely, an application can be vulnerable when all the following are true: * the application is using Spring MVC or Spring WebFlux * the application is configuring the resource chain support https://docs.spring.io/spring-framework/reference/web/webmvc/mvc-config/static-resources.html#page-title with caching enabled * the application adds support for encoded resources resolution * the resource cache must be empty when the attacker has access to the application When all the conditions above are met, the attacker can send malicious requests and poison the resource cache with resources using the wrong encoding. This can cause a denial of service by breaking the front-end application for clients. |
| CVE-2026-22740 | Medium | 2026-04-29 | No exploit published | No public exploit | A WebFlux server application that processes multipart requests creates temp files for parts larger than 10 K. Under some circumstances, temp files may remain not deleted after the request is fully processed. This allows an attacker to consume available disk space. Older, unsupported versions are also affected. |
| CVE-2026-22737 | Medium | 2026-03-20 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Use of Java scripting engine enabled (e.g. JRuby, Jython) template views in Spring MVC and Spring WebFlux applications can result in disclosure of content from files outside the configured locations for script template views. This issue affects Spring Framework: from 7.0.0 through 7.0.5, from 6.2.0 through 6.2.16, from 6.1.0 through 6.1.25, from 5.3.0 through 5.3.46. |
| CVE-2026-22735 | Low | 2026-03-20 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Spring MVC and WebFlux applications are vulnerable to stream corruption when using Server-Sent Events (SSE). This issue affects Spring Foundation: from 7.0.0 through 7.0.5, from 6.2.0 through 6.2.16, from 6.1.0 through 6.1.25, from 5.3.0 through 5.3.46. |
| CVE-2025-41254 | Medium | 2025-10-16 | No exploit published | No public exploit | STOMP over WebSocket applications may be vulnerable to a security bypass that allows an attacker to send unauthorized messages. Affected Spring Products and VersionsSpring Framework: * 6.2.0 - 6.2.11 * 6.1.0 - 6.1.23 * 6.0.x - 6.0.29 * 5.3.0 - 5.3.45 * Older, unsupported versions are also affected. MitigationUsers of affected versions should upgrade to the corresponding fixed version. Affected version(s)Fix versionAvailability6.2.x6.2.12OSS6.1.x6.1.24 Commercial https://enterprise.spring.io/ 6.0.xN/A Out of support https://spring.io/projects/spring-framework#support 5.3.x5.3.46 Commercial https://enterprise.spring.io/ No further mitigation steps are necessary. CreditThis vulnerability was discovered and responsibly reported by Jannis Kaiser. |
| 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-2024-38828 | Medium | 2024-11-18 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Spring MVC controller methods with an @RequestBody byte[] method parameter are vulnerable to a DoS attack. |
| CVE-2024-38820 | Medium | 2024-10-18 | No exploit published | No public exploit | The fix for CVE-2022-22968 made disallowedFields patterns in DataBinder case insensitive. However, String.toLowerCase() has some Locale dependent exceptions that could potentially result in fields not protected as expected. |
| CVE-2024-38816 | High | 2024-09-13 | Protected by Waratek | Exploited | 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. Specifically, an application is vulnerable when both of the following are true: * the web application uses RouterFunctions to serve static resources * resource handling is explicitly configured with a FileSystemResource location However, malicious requests are blocked and rejected when any of the following is true: * the Spring Security HTTP Firewall https://docs.spring.io/spring-security/reference/servlet/exploits/firewall.html is in use * the application runs on Tomcat or Jetty |
| CVE-2024-38808 | Medium | 2024-08-20 | Protected by Waratek | No public exploit | In Spring Framework versions 5.3.0 - 5.3.38 and older unsupported versions, it is possible for a user to provide a specially crafted Spring Expression Language (SpEL) expression that may cause a denial of service (DoS) condition. Specifically, an application is vulnerable when the following is true: * The application evaluates user-supplied SpEL expressions. |
| 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-2024-22259 | High | 2024-03-16 | Protected by Waratek | No public exploit | Applications that use UriComponentsBuilder in Spring Framework 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-2024-22243 https://spring.io/security/cve-2024-22243 , but with different input. |
| 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-2023-34053 | High | 2023-11-28 | No exploit published | No public exploit | In Spring Framework versions 6.0.0 - 6.0.13, 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 or Spring WebFlux * io.micrometer:micrometer-core is on the classpath * an ObservationRegistry is configured in the application to record observations Typically, Spring Boot applications need the org.springframework.boot:spring-boot-actuator dependency to meet all conditions. |
| 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-2023-20860 | High | 2023-03-27 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Spring Framework running version 6.0.0 - 6.0.6 or 5.3.0 - 5.3.25 using "**" as a pattern in Spring Security configuration with the mvcRequestMatcher creates a mismatch in pattern matching between Spring Security and Spring MVC, and the potential for a security bypass. |
| CVE-2023-20861 | Medium | 2023-03-23 | No exploit published | No public exploit | In Spring Framework versions 6.0.0 - 6.0.6, 5.3.0 - 5.3.25, 5.2.0.RELEASE - 5.2.22.RELEASE, and older unsupported versions, 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-2022-22970 | Medium | 2022-05-12 | No exploit published | No public exploit | In spring framework versions prior to 5.3.20+ , 5.2.22+ and old unsupported versions, applications that handle file uploads are vulnerable to DoS attack if they rely on data binding to set a MultipartFile or javax.servlet.Part to a field in a model object. |
| CVE-2022-22968 | Medium | 2022-04-14 | No exploit published | No public exploit | In Spring Framework versions 5.3.0 - 5.3.18, 5.2.0 - 5.2.20, and older unsupported versions, the patterns for disallowedFields on a DataBinder are case sensitive which means a field is not effectively protected unless it is listed with both upper and lower case for the first character of the field, including upper and lower case for the first character of all nested fields within the property path. |
| CVE-2022-22965 | Critical | 2022-04-01 | Protected by Waratek | Exploited | A Spring MVC or Spring WebFlux application running on JDK 9+ may be vulnerable to remote code execution (RCE) via data binding. The specific exploit requires the application to run on Tomcat as a WAR deployment. If the application is deployed as a Spring Boot executable jar, i.e. the default, it is not vulnerable to the exploit. However, the nature of the vulnerability is more general, and there may be other ways to exploit it. |
| CVE-2022-22950 | Medium | 2022-04-01 | Protected by Waratek | No public exploit | n Spring Framework versions 5.3.0 - 5.3.16 and older unsupported versions, it is possible for a user to provide a specially crafted SpEL expression that may cause a denial of service condition. |
| 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-2021-22118 | High | 2021-05-27 | Protected by Waratek | No public exploit | In Spring Framework, versions 5.2.x prior to 5.2.15 and versions 5.3.x prior to 5.3.7, a WebFlux application is vulnerable to a privilege escalation: by (re)creating the temporary storage directory, a locally authenticated malicious user can read or modify files that have been uploaded to the WebFlux application, or overwrite arbitrary files with multipart request data. |
| CVE-2020-5421 | Medium | 2020-09-19 | No exploit published | No public exploit | In Spring Framework versions 5.2.0 - 5.2.8, 5.1.0 - 5.1.17, 5.0.0 - 5.0.18, 4.3.0 - 4.3.28, and older unsupported versions, the protections against RFD attacks from CVE-2015-5211 may be bypassed depending on the browser used through the use of a jsessionid path parameter. |
| CVE-2020-5397 | Medium | 2020-01-17 | Protected by Waratek | No public exploit | Spring Framework, versions 5.2.x prior to 5.2.3 are vulnerable to CSRF attacks through CORS preflight requests that target Spring MVC (spring-webmvc module) or Spring WebFlux (spring-webflux module) endpoints. Only non-authenticated endpoints are vulnerable because preflight requests should not include credentials and therefore requests should fail authentication. However a notable exception to this are Chrome based browsers when using client certificates for authentication since Chrome sends TLS client certificates in CORS preflight requests in violation of spec requirements. No HTTP body can be sent or received as a result of this attack. |
| CVE-2016-1000027 | Critical | 2020-01-02 | Protected by Waratek | Proof of concept only | Pivotal Spring Framework through 5.3.16 suffers from a potential remote code execution (RCE) issue if used for Java deserialization of untrusted data. Depending on how the library is implemented within a product, this issue may or not occur, and authentication may be required. NOTE: the vendor's position is that untrusted data is not an intended use case. The product's behavior will not be changed because some users rely on deserialization of trusted data. |
| 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-2018-11039 | Medium | 2018-06-25 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Spring Framework (versions 5.0.x prior to 5.0.7, versions 4.3.x prior to 4.3.18, and older unsupported versions) allow web applications to change the HTTP request method to any HTTP method (including TRACE) using the HiddenHttpMethodFilter in Spring MVC. If an application has a pre-existing XSS vulnerability, a malicious user (or attacker) can use this filter to escalate to an XST (Cross Site Tracing) attack. |
| 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-2018-1275 | Critical | 2018-04-11 | Protected by Waratek | Forecast only | Spring Framework, versions 5.0 prior to 5.0.5 and versions 4.3 prior to 4.3.16 and older unsupported versions, allow 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 remote code execution attack. This CVE addresses the partial fix for CVE-2018-1270 in the 4.3.x branch of the Spring Framework. |
| 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-2018-1271 | Medium | 2018-04-06 | Protected by Waratek | Working exploit published | Spring Framework, versions 5.0 prior to 5.0.5 and versions 4.3 prior to 4.3.15 and older unsupported versions, allow applications to configure Spring MVC to serve static resources (e.g. CSS, JS, images). When static resources are served from a file system on Windows (as opposed to the classpath, or the ServletContext), a malicious user can send a request using a specially crafted URL that can lead a directory traversal attack. |
| CVE-2018-1270 | Critical | 2018-04-06 | Protected by Waratek | Proof of concept only | Spring Framework, versions 5.0 prior to 5.0.5 and versions 4.3 prior to 4.3.15 and older unsupported versions, allow 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 remote code execution attack. |
| 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-2014-0225 | High | 2017-05-25 | Protected by Waratek | No public exploit | When processing user provided XML documents, the Spring Framework 4.0.0 to 4.0.4, 3.0.0 to 3.2.8, and possibly earlier unsupported versions did not disable by default the resolution of URI references in a DTD declaration. This enabled an XXE attack. |
| CVE-2016-9878 | High | 2016-12-29 | Protected by Waratek | No public exploit | An issue was discovered in Pivotal Spring Framework before 3.2.18, 4.2.x before 4.2.9, and 4.3.x before 4.3.5. Paths provided to the ResourceServlet were not properly sanitized and as a result exposed to directory traversal attacks. |
| CVE-2015-3192 | Medium | 2016-07-12 | Protected by Waratek | No public exploit | Pivotal Spring Framework before 3.2.14 and 4.x before 4.1.7 do not properly process inline DTD declarations when DTD is not entirely disabled, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (memory consumption and out-of-memory errors) via a crafted XML file. |
| 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-2014-3625 | Medium | 2014-11-20 | Protected by Waratek | Proof of concept only | Directory traversal vulnerability in Pivotal Spring Framework 3.0.4 through 3.2.x before 3.2.12, 4.0.x before 4.0.8, and 4.1.x before 4.1.2 allows remote attackers to read arbitrary files via unspecified vectors, related to static resource handling. |
| CVE-2014-0054 | Medium | 2014-04-17 | Protected by Waratek | Forecast only | The Jaxb2RootElementHttpMessageConverter in Spring MVC in Spring Framework before 3.2.8 and 4.0.0 before 4.0.2 does not disable external entity resolution, which allows remote attackers to read arbitrary files, cause a denial of service, and conduct CSRF attacks via crafted XML, aka an XML External Entity (XXE) issue. NOTE: this vulnerability exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2013-4152, CVE-2013-7315, and CVE-2013-6429. |
| CVE-2014-1904 | Medium | 2014-03-20 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in web/servlet/tags/form/FormTag.java in Spring MVC in Spring Framework 3.0.0 before 3.2.8 and 4.0.0 before 4.0.2 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the requested URI in a default action. |
| CVE-2013-6429 | Medium | 2014-01-26 | Protected by Waratek | Forecast only | The SourceHttpMessageConverter in Spring MVC in Spring Framework before 3.2.5 and 4.0.0.M1 through 4.0.0.RC1 does not disable external entity resolution, which allows remote attackers to read arbitrary files, cause a denial of service, and conduct CSRF attacks via crafted XML, aka an XML External Entity (XXE) issue, and a different vulnerability than CVE-2013-4152 and CVE-2013-7315. |
| CVE-2013-7315 | Medium | 2014-01-23 | Protected by Waratek | No public exploit | The Spring MVC in Spring Framework before 3.2.4 and 4.0.0.M1 through 4.0.0.M2 does not disable external entity resolution for the StAX XMLInputFactory, which allows context-dependent attackers to read arbitrary files, cause a denial of service, and conduct CSRF attacks via crafted XML with JAXB, aka an XML External Entity (XXE) issue, and a different vulnerability than CVE-2013-4152. NOTE: this issue was SPLIT from CVE-2013-4152 due to different affected versions. |
| CVE-2013-4152 | Medium | 2014-01-23 | Protected by Waratek | No public exploit | The Spring OXM wrapper in Spring Framework before 3.2.4 and 4.0.0.M1, when using the JAXB marshaller, does not disable entity resolution, which allows context-dependent attackers to read arbitrary files, cause a denial of service, and conduct CSRF attacks via an XML external entity declaration in conjunction with an entity reference in a (1) DOMSource, (2) StAXSource, (3) SAXSource, or (4) StreamSource, aka an XML External Entity (XXE) issue. |
| 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-2011-2894 | Medium | 2011-10-04 | Protected by Waratek | Proof of concept only | Spring Framework 3.0.0 through 3.0.5, Spring Security 3.0.0 through 3.0.5 and 2.0.0 through 2.0.6, and possibly other versions deserialize objects from untrusted sources, which allows remote attackers to bypass intended security restrictions and execute untrusted code by (1) serializing a java.lang.Proxy instance and using InvocationHandler, or (2) accessing internal AOP interfaces, as demonstrated using deserialization of a DefaultListableBeanFactory instance to execute arbitrary commands via the java.lang.Runtime class. |
| CVE-2010-1622 | Medium | 2010-06-21 | Protected by Waratek | Working exploit published | SpringSource Spring Framework 2.5.x before 2.5.6.SEC02, 2.5.7 before 2.5.7.SR01, and 3.0.x before 3.0.3 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via an HTTP request containing class.classLoader.URLs[0]=jar: followed by a URL of a crafted .jar file. |
| 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. |