Overview 11 matches · 1 protected · 0 exploited · 0 CISA KEV · 2 public PoC · 0 EPSS ≥ 0.5
Protected by Waratek
1
9.1%
Rule in development
0
0.0%
Mitigation candidate
2
18.2%
No exploit published
8
72.7%
Outside Waratek scope
0
0.0%
Not applicable
0
0.0%
Withdrawn CVE
0
0.0%
blocked by ARMR today
1
9.1%
partly blocked
0
0.0%
not blocked
10
90.9%
not established
0
0.0%
unrecorded
0
0.0%
Exploited
0
0.0%
Working exploit published
0
0.0%
Proof of concept only
2
18.2%
Forecast only
0
0.0%
No public exploit
9
81.8%
split by
peak 3 / year
20171
No exploit published1
Critical1
not blocked1
No public exploit1
20182
Protected by Waratek1
No exploit published1
Critical2
blocked by ARMR today1
not blocked1
No public exploit2
20190
20200
20210
20222
Mitigation candidate2
Critical2
not blocked2
Proof of concept only2
20233
No exploit published3
Critical3
not blocked3
No public exploit3
20241
No exploit published1
Critical1
not blocked1
No public exploit1
20251
No exploit published1
Critical1
not blocked1
No public exploit1
20261
No exploit published1
Critical1
not blocked1
No public exploit1
2017201820192020202120222023202420252026
| CVE | Severity | Published▾ | Status | Exploitation | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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-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-2022-31692 | Critical | 2022-10-31 | Mitigation candidate | Proof of concept only | Spring Security, versions 5.7 prior to 5.7.5 and 5.6 prior to 5.6.9 could be susceptible to authorization rules bypass via forward or include dispatcher types. Specifically, an application is vulnerable when all of the following are true: The application expects that Spring Security applies security to forward and include dispatcher types. The application uses the AuthorizationFilter either manually or via the authorizeHttpRequests() method. The application configures the FilterChainProxy to apply to forward and/or include requests (e.g. spring.security.filter.dispatcher-types = request, error, async, forward, include). The application may forward or include the request to a higher privilege-secured endpoint.The application configures Spring Security to apply to every dispatcher type via authorizeHttpRequests().shouldFilterAllDispatcherTypes(true) |
| CVE-2022-22978 | Critical | 2022-05-19 | Mitigation candidate | Proof of concept only | In spring security versions prior to 5.4.11+, 5.5.7+ , 5.6.4+ and older unsupported versions, RegexRequestMatcher can easily be misconfigured to be bypassed on some servlet containers. Applications using RegexRequestMatcher with `.` in the regular expression are possibly vulnerable to an authorization bypass. |
| 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-2018-1260 | Critical | 2018-05-11 | Protected by Waratek | No public exploit | Spring Security OAuth, versions 2.3 prior to 2.3.3, 2.2 prior to 2.2.2, 2.1 prior to 2.1.2, 2.0 prior to 2.0.15 and older unsupported versions contains a remote code execution vulnerability. A malicious user or attacker can craft an authorization request to the authorization endpoint that can lead to remote code execution when the resource owner is forwarded to the approval endpoint. |
| 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. |