WaratekVRT Sign in
Reset
More filters (1)
Columns
Product spring-security✕
Overview 8 matches · 0 protected · 0 exploited · 0 CISA KEV · 0 public PoC · 0 EPSS ≥ 0.5
8matches 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 8 100.0%
Critical 8 100.0% High 0 0.0% Medium 0 0.0% Low 0 0.0% None 0 0.0% Unknown 0 0.0%
blocked by ARMR today 0 0.0% partly blocked 0 0.0% not blocked 8 100.0% 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 8 100.0%
split by peak 3 / year
No exploit published: 8 Critical: 8 not blocked: 8 No public exploit: 8
20171 No exploit published1 Critical1 not blocked1 No public exploit1 20181 No exploit published1 Critical1 not blocked1 No public exploit1 20190 20200 20210 20220 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
8 matches Sign in to download these CVEs as CSV or JSON, or to follow them in a feed.
CVE Severity Published▾ Status Exploitation Description
CVE-2026-22732 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-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-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.