Medium Spring CVEs
45 CVEs, 17 protected by Waratek
Overview 45 matches · 17 protected · 0 exploited · 0 CISA KEV · 5 public PoC · 3 EPSS ≥ 0.5
Protected by Waratek
17
37.8%
Rule in development
0
0.0%
Mitigation candidate
0
0.0%
No exploit published
28
62.2%
blocked by ARMR today
17
37.8%
partly blocked
0
0.0%
not blocked
28
62.2%
not established
0
0.0%
unrecorded
0
0.0%
split by
peak 13 / 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
20120
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
20161
Protected by Waratek1
Medium1
blocked by ARMR today1
No public exploit1
20170
20184
Protected by Waratek1
No exploit published3
Medium4
blocked by ARMR today1
not blocked3
Working exploit published1
No public exploit3
20190
20202
Protected by Waratek1
No exploit published1
Medium2
blocked by ARMR today1
not blocked1
No public exploit2
20211
No exploit published1
Medium1
not blocked1
No public exploit1
20225
Protected by Waratek2
No exploit published3
Medium5
blocked by ARMR today2
not blocked3
No public exploit5
20232
No exploit published2
Medium2
not blocked2
No public exploit2
20243
Protected by Waratek1
No exploit published2
Medium3
blocked by ARMR today1
not blocked2
No public exploit3
20253
Protected by Waratek1
No exploit published2
Medium3
blocked by ARMR today1
not blocked2
Working exploit published1
No public exploit2
202613
Protected by Waratek1
No exploit published12
Medium13
blocked by ARMR today1
not blocked12
No public exploit13
201020122014201620182020202220242026
| CVE | Severity | Published▾ | Status | Exploitation | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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-2026-41847 | 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-2026-41844 | 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-2026-41841 | 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-2026-22745 | 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-2026-22740 | 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-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-2025-41242 | 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-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-2024-38808 | 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-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-2023-20861 | 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-2022-22950 | 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-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-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-2018-1257 | 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-2018-1271 | 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-2018-1199 | 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-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-2011-2894 | 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. |