Overview 37 matches · 0 protected · 0 exploited · 0 CISA KEV · 0 public PoC · 0 EPSS ≥ 0.5
37matches
0protected0.0%
0exploited0.0%
0CISA KEV0.0%
0public PoC0.0%
0EPSS ≥ 0.50.0%
Protected by Waratek
0
0.0%
Rule in development
0
0.0%
Mitigation candidate
0
0.0%
No exploit published
37
100.0%
blocked by ARMR today
0
0.0%
partly blocked
0
0.0%
not blocked
37
100.0%
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
37
100.0%
split by
peak 20 / year
20161
No exploit published1
Critical1
not blocked1
No public exploit1
20172
No exploit published2
Critical2
not blocked2
No public exploit2
20181
No exploit published1
Critical1
not blocked1
No public exploit1
20191
No exploit published1
Critical1
not blocked1
No public exploit1
20202
No exploit published2
Critical2
not blocked2
No public exploit2
20212
No exploit published2
Critical2
not blocked2
No public exploit2
20221
No exploit published1
Critical1
not blocked1
No public exploit1
20234
No exploit published4
Critical4
not blocked4
No public exploit4
20242
No exploit published2
Critical2
not blocked2
No public exploit2
20251
No exploit published1
Critical1
not blocked1
No public exploit1
202620
No exploit published20
Critical20
not blocked20
No public exploit20
20162017201820192020202120222023202420252026
| CVE | Severity | Published▾ | Status | Exploitation | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-59354 | Critical | 2026-08-27 | No exploit published | No public exploit | In versions of Spring Security's OAuth2 Authorization Server module 7.0.0 through 7.0.4, when Dynamic Client Registration is explicitly enabled, the registration endpoint performs insufficient validation of certain client metadata fields supplied by the registering client. An attacker who possesses a valid Initial Access Token can register a malicious client with crafted metadata, which, depending on server configuration and how the metadata is later rendered or used, may result in Stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS), Privilege Escalation, or Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF). |
| CVE-2026-59313 | Critical | 2026-08-27 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Spring MVC applications using the functional web framework are vulnerable to stream corruption when using Server-Sent Events (SSE). 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 |
| CVE-2026-59283 | Critical | 2026-08-27 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Applications that evaluate Spring Expression Language (SpEL) expressions using SimpleEvaluationContext may be vulnerable to a safety guard bypass when the SpEL expression compiler is active. 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-2026-59270 | Critical | 2026-08-27 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Spring Security's embedded UnboundID LDAP server (UnboundIdContainer) unconditionally registers an administrative credential and binds its listener to all available network interfaces. Spring Security 7.1.0 Spring Security 7.0.0 - 7.0.6 Spring Security 6.5.0 - 6.5.11 Spring Security 6.4.0 - 6.4.18 Spring Security 5.8.0 - 5.8.27 Spring Security 5.7.0 - 5.7.25 |
| 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-2026-47891 | Critical | 2026-08-27 | No exploit published | No public exploit | A Spring WebFlux application that relies on the Aalto XML processor to parse XML input does not correctly enforce the maxInMemorySize limit. 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-2026-47890 | 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-2026-59318 | Critical | 2026-08-21 | No exploit published | No public exploit | In Spring AI's tool calling support, the per-request tool list is advertised to the model as a boundary but is not fully enforced when a tool call is dispatched. Under certain conditions, a tool that was not made available to the current request could be invoked, potentially leading to privilege escalation. Affected versions: Spring AI: 2.0.0 Spring AI: 1.1.0 through 1.1.8 Spring AI: 1.0.0 through 1.0.9 |
| 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-2026-41901 | Critical | 2026-05-12 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Thymeleaf is a server-side Java template engine for web and standalone environments. Prior to 3.1.5.RELEASE, a security bypass vulnerability exists in the expression execution mechanisms of Thymeleaf. Although the library provides mechanisms to avoid the execution of potentially dangerous expressions in some specific sandboxed (restricted) contexts, it fails to properly neutralize specific constructs that allow this kind of expressions to be executed. If an application developer passes to the template engine unsanitized variables that contain such expressions, and these values are used in sandboxed contexts inside the templates, these expressions can be executed achieving Server-Side Template Injection (SSTI). This vulnerability is fixed in 3.1.5.RELEASE. |
| CVE-2026-40976 | Critical | 2026-04-28 | No exploit published | No public exploit | In certain circumstances, Spring Boot's default web security is ineffective allowing unauthorized access to all endpoints. For an application to be vulnerable, it must: be a servlet-based web application; have no Spring Security configuration of its own and rely on the default web security filter chain; depend on spring-boot-actuator-autoconfigure; not depend on spring-boot-health. If any of the above does not apply, the application is not vulnerable. Affected: Spring Boot 4.0.0–4.0.5; upgrade to 4.0.6 or later per vendor advisory. |
| CVE-2026-40974 | Critical | 2026-04-28 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Spring Boot's Cassandra auto-configuration does not perform hostname verification when establishing an SSL connection to Cassandra. Affected: Spring Boot 4.0.0–4.0.5 (fix 4.0.6), 3.5.0–3.5.13 (fix 3.5.14), 3.4.0–3.4.15 (fix 3.4.16), 3.3.0–3.3.18 (fix 3.3.19), 2.7.0–2.7.32 (fix 2.7.33); Cassandra SSL auto-configuration. Versions that are no longer supported are also affected per vendor advisory. |
| CVE-2026-40971 | Critical | 2026-04-27 | No exploit published | No public exploit | When configured to use an SSL bundle, Spring Boot's RabbitMQ auto-configuration does not perform hostname verification when connecting to the RabbitMQ broker. Affected: Spring Boot 4.0.0–4.0.5 (fix 4.0.6), 3.5.0–3.5.13 (fix 3.5.14) per vendor advisory. |
| CVE-2026-40478 | Critical | 2026-04-17 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Thymeleaf is a server-side Java template engine for web and standalone environments. Versions 3.1.3.RELEASE and prior contain a security bypass vulnerability in the the expression execution mechanisms. Although the library provides mechanisms to prevent expression injection, it fails to properly neutralize specific syntax patterns that allow for the execution of unauthorized expressions. If an application developer passes unvalidated user input directly to the template engine, an unauthenticated remote attacker can bypass the library's protections to achieve Server-Side Template Injection (SSTI). This issue has ben fixed in version 3.1.4.RELEASE. |
| CVE-2026-40477 | Critical | 2026-04-17 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Thymeleaf is a server-side Java template engine for web and standalone environments. Versions 3.1.3.RELEASE and prior contain a security bypass vulnerability in the expression execution mechanisms. Although the library provides mechanisms to prevent expression injection, it fails to properly restrict the scope of accessible objects, allowing specific potentially sensitive objects to be reached from within a template. If an application developer passes unvalidated user input directly to the template engine, an unauthenticated remote attacker can bypass the library's protections to achieve Server-Side Template Injection (SSTI). This issue has ben fixed in version 3.1.4.RELEASE. |
| CVE-2026-28369 | Critical | 2026-03-27 | No exploit published | No public exploit | A flaw was found in Undertow. When Undertow receives an HTTP request where the first header line starts with one or more spaces, it incorrectly processes the request by stripping these leading spaces. This behavior, which violates HTTP standards, can be exploited by a remote attacker to perform request smuggling. Request smuggling allows an attacker to bypass security mechanisms, access restricted information, or manipulate web caches, potentially leading to unauthorized actions or data exposure. |
| CVE-2026-28368 | Critical | 2026-03-27 | No exploit published | No public exploit | A flaw was found in Undertow. This vulnerability allows a remote attacker to construct specially crafted requests where header names are parsed differently by Undertow compared to upstream proxies. This discrepancy in header interpretation can be exploited to launch request smuggling attacks, potentially bypassing security controls and accessing unauthorized resources. |
| CVE-2026-28367 | Critical | 2026-03-27 | No exploit published | No public exploit | A flaw was found in Undertow. A remote attacker can exploit this vulnerability by sending `\r\r\r` as a header block terminator. This can be used for request smuggling with certain proxy servers, such as older versions of Apache Traffic Server and Google Cloud Classic Application Load Balancer, potentially leading to unauthorized access or manipulation of web requests. |
| CVE-2026-22732 | Critical | 2026-03-19 | No exploit published | No public exploit | When applications specify HTTP response headers for servlet applications using Spring Security, there is the possibility that the HTTP Headers will not be written. This issue affects Spring Security Servlet applications using lazy (default) writing of HTTP Headers: : from 5.7.0 through 5.7.21, from 5.8.0 through 5.8.23, from 6.3.0 through 6.3.14, from 6.4.0 through 6.4.14, from 6.5.0 through 6.5.8, from 7.0.0 through 7.0.3. |
| CVE-2025-41232 | Critical | 2025-05-21 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Spring Security Aspects may not correctly locate method security annotations on private methods. This can cause an authorization bypass. Your application may be affected by this if the following are true: * You are using @EnableMethodSecurity(mode=ASPECTJ) and spring-security-aspects, and * You have Spring Security method annotations on a private method In that case, the target method may be able to be invoked without proper authorization. You are not affected if: * You are not using @EnableMethodSecurity(mode=ASPECTJ) or spring-security-aspects, or * You have no Spring Security-annotated private methods |
| CVE-2024-38821 | Critical | 2024-10-28 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Spring WebFlux applications that have Spring Security authorization rules on static resources can be bypassed under certain circumstances. For this to impact an application, all of the following must be true: * It must be a WebFlux application * It must be using Spring's static resources support * It must have a non-permitAll authorization rule applied to the static resources support |
| CVE-2024-23687 | Critical | 2024-01-19 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Hard-coded credentials in FOLIO mod-data-export-spring versions before 1.5.4 and from 2.0.0 to 2.0.2 allows unauthenticated users to access critical APIs, modify user data, modify configurations including single-sign-on, and manipulate fees/fines. |
| CVE-2023-50424 | Critical | 2023-12-12 | No exploit published | No public exploit | SAP BTP Security Services Integration Library ([Golang] github.com/sap/cloud-security-client-go) - versions < 0.17.0, allow under certain conditions an escalation of privileges. On successful exploitation, an unauthenticated attacker can obtain arbitrary permissions within the application. |
| CVE-2023-50422 | Critical | 2023-12-12 | No exploit published | No public exploit | SAP BTP Security Services Integration Library ([Java] cloud-security-services-integration-library) - versions below 2.17.0 and versions from 3.0.0 to before 3.3.0, allow under certain conditions an escalation of privileges. On successful exploitation, an unauthenticated attacker can obtain arbitrary permissions within the application. |
| CVE-2023-34034 | Critical | 2023-07-19 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Using "**" as a pattern in Spring Security configuration for WebFlux creates a mismatch in pattern matching between Spring Security and Spring WebFlux, and the potential for a security bypass. |
| CVE-2023-20873 | Critical | 2023-04-20 | No exploit published | No public exploit | In Spring Boot versions 3.0.0 - 3.0.5, 2.7.0 - 2.7.10, and older unsupported versions, an application that is deployed to Cloud Foundry could be susceptible to a security bypass. Users of affected versions should apply the following mitigation: 3.0.x users should upgrade to 3.0.6+. 2.7.x users should upgrade to 2.7.11+. Users of older, unsupported versions should upgrade to 3.0.6+ or 2.7.11+. |
| CVE-2022-46166 | Critical | 2022-12-09 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Spring boot admins is an open source administrative user interface for management of spring boot applications. All users who run Spring Boot Admin Server, having enabled Notifiers (e.g. Teams-Notifier) and write access to environment variables via UI are affected. Users are advised to upgrade to the most recent releases of Spring Boot Admin 2.6.10 and 2.7.8 to resolve this issue. Users unable to upgrade may disable any notifier or disable write access (POST request) on `/env` actuator endpoint. |
| CVE-2021-43466 | Critical | 2021-11-09 | No exploit published | No public exploit | In the thymeleaf-spring5:3.0.12 component, thymeleaf combined with specific scenarios in template injection may lead to remote code execution. |
| CVE-2021-26077 | Critical | 2021-05-10 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Broken Authentication in Atlassian Connect Spring Boot (ACSB) in version 1.1.0 before 2.1.3 and from version 2.1.4 before 2.1.5: Atlassian Connect Spring Boot is a Java Spring Boot package for building Atlassian Connect apps. Authentication between Atlassian products and the Atlassian Connect Spring Boot app occurs with a server-to-server JWT or a context JWT. Atlassian Connect Spring Boot versions 1.1.0 before 2.1.3 and versions 2.1.4 before 2.1.5 erroneously accept context JWTs in lifecycle endpoints (such as installation) where only server-to-server JWTs should be accepted, permitting an attacker to send authenticated re-installation events to an app. |
| CVE-2020-17510 | Critical | 2020-11-05 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Apache Shiro before 1.7.0, when using Apache Shiro with Spring, a specially crafted HTTP request may cause an authentication bypass. |
| CVE-2020-5413 | Critical | 2020-07-31 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Spring Integration framework provides Kryo Codec implementations as an alternative for Java (de)serialization. When Kryo is configured with default options, all unregistered classes are resolved on demand. This leads to the "deserialization gadgets" exploit when provided data contains malicious code for execution during deserialization. In order to protect against this type of attack, Kryo can be configured to require a set of trusted classes for (de)serialization. Spring Integration should be proactive against blocking unknown "deserialization gadgets" when configuring Kryo in code. |
| CVE-2019-17495 | Critical | 2019-10-10 | No exploit published | No public exploit | A Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) injection vulnerability in Swagger UI before 3.23.11 allows attackers to use the Relative Path Overwrite (RPO) technique to perform CSS-based input field value exfiltration, such as exfiltration of a CSRF token value. In other words, this product intentionally allows the embedding of untrusted JSON data from remote servers, but it was not previously known that <style>@import within the JSON data was a functional attack method. |
| CVE-2018-15758 | Critical | 2018-10-18 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Spring Security OAuth, versions 2.3 prior to 2.3.4, and 2.2 prior to 2.2.3, and 2.1 prior to 2.1.3, and 2.0 prior to 2.0.16, and older unsupported versions could be susceptible to a privilege escalation under certain conditions. A malicious user or attacker can craft a request to the approval endpoint that can modify the previously saved authorization request and lead to a privilege escalation on the subsequent approval. This scenario can happen if the application is configured to use a custom approval endpoint that declares AuthorizationRequest as a controller method argument. This vulnerability exposes applications that meet all of the following requirements: Act in the role of an Authorization Server (e.g. @EnableAuthorizationServer) and use a custom Approval Endpoint that declares AuthorizationRequest as a controller method argument. This vulnerability does not expose applications that: Act in the role of an Authorization Server and use the default Approval Endpoint, act in the role of a Resource Server only (e.g. @EnableResourceServer), act in the role of a Client only (e.g. @EnableOAuthClient). |
| 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-2014-3527 | Critical | 2017-05-25 | No exploit published | No public exploit | When using the CAS Proxy ticket authentication from Spring Security 3.1 to 3.2.4 a malicious CAS Service could trick another CAS Service into authenticating a proxy ticket that was not associated. This is due to the fact that the proxy ticket authentication uses the information from the HttpServletRequest which is populated based upon untrusted information within the HTTP request. This means if there are access control restrictions on which CAS services can authenticate to one another, those restrictions can be bypassed. If users are not using CAS Proxy tickets and not basing access control decisions based upon the CAS Service, then there is no impact to users. |
| CVE-2016-4464 | Critical | 2016-09-21 | No exploit published | No public exploit | The application plugins in Apache CXF Fediz 1.2.x before 1.2.3 and 1.3.x before 1.3.1 do not match SAML AudienceRestriction values against configured audience URIs, which might allow remote attackers to have bypass intended restrictions and have unspecified other impact via a crafted SAML token with a trusted signature. |