High Spring-security-core CVEs
12 CVEs
Overview 12 matches · 0 protected · 0 exploited · 0 CISA KEV · 0 public PoC · 0 EPSS ≥ 0.5
12matches
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
12
100.0%
blocked by ARMR today
0
0.0%
partly blocked
0
0.0%
not blocked
12
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
12
100.0%
split by
peak 4 / year
20174
No exploit published4
High4
not blocked4
No public exploit4
20181
No exploit published1
High1
not blocked1
No public exploit1
20191
No exploit published1
High1
not blocked1
No public exploit1
20201
No exploit published1
High1
not blocked1
No public exploit1
20211
No exploit published1
High1
not blocked1
No public exploit1
20220
20230
20243
No exploit published3
High3
not blocked3
No public exploit3
20251
No exploit published1
High1
not blocked1
No public exploit1
201720182019202020212022202320242025
| CVE | Severity | Published▾ | Status | Exploitation | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2025-41248 | High | 2025-09-16 | No exploit published | No public exploit | The Spring Security 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 when using @PreAuthorize and other method security annotations, resulting in an authorization bypass. 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-2025-41249 https://spring.io/security/cve-2025-41249 . |
| CVE-2024-38810 | High | 2024-08-20 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Missing Authorization When Using @AuthorizeReturnObject in Spring Security 6.3.0 and 6.3.1 allows attacker to render security annotations inaffective. |
| CVE-2024-22257 | High | 2024-03-18 | No exploit published | No public exploit | In Spring Security, versions 5.7.x prior to 5.7.12, 5.8.x prior to 5.8.11, versions 6.0.x prior to 6.0.9, versions 6.1.x prior to 6.1.8, versions 6.2.x prior to 6.2.3, an application is possible vulnerable to broken access control when it directly uses the AuthenticatedVoter#vote passing a null Authentication parameter. |
| CVE-2024-22234 | High | 2024-02-20 | No exploit published | No public exploit | In Spring Security, versions 6.1.x prior to 6.1.7 and versions 6.2.x prior to 6.2.2, an application is vulnerable to broken access control when it directly uses the AuthenticationTrustResolver.isFullyAuthenticated(Authentication) method. Specifically, an application is vulnerable if: * The application uses AuthenticationTrustResolver.isFullyAuthenticated(Authentication) directly and a null authentication parameter is passed to it resulting in an erroneous true return value. An application is not vulnerable if any of the following is true: * The application does not use AuthenticationTrustResolver.isFullyAuthenticated(Authentication) directly. * The application does not pass null to AuthenticationTrustResolver.isFullyAuthenticated * The application only uses isFullyAuthenticated via Method Security https://docs.spring.io/spring-security/reference/servlet/authorization/method-security.html or HTTP Request Security https://docs.spring.io/spring-security/reference/servlet/authorization/authorize-http-requests.html |
| CVE-2021-22119 | High | 2021-06-29 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Spring Security versions 5.5.x prior to 5.5.1, 5.4.x prior to 5.4.7, 5.3.x prior to 5.3.10 and 5.2.x prior to 5.2.11 are susceptible to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) attack via the initiation of the Authorization Request in an OAuth 2.0 Client Web and WebFlux application. A malicious user or attacker can send multiple requests initiating the Authorization Request for the Authorization Code Grant, which has the potential of exhausting system resources using a single session or multiple sessions. |
| CVE-2020-5407 | High | 2020-05-13 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Spring Security versions 5.2.x prior to 5.2.4 and 5.3.x prior to 5.3.2 contain a signature wrapping vulnerability during SAML response validation. When using the spring-security-saml2-service-provider component, a malicious user can carefully modify an otherwise valid SAML response and append an arbitrary assertion that Spring Security will accept as valid. |
| CVE-2019-11272 | High | 2019-06-26 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Spring Security, versions 4.2.x up to 4.2.12, and older unsupported versions support plain text passwords using PlaintextPasswordEncoder. If an application using an affected version of Spring Security is leveraging PlaintextPasswordEncoder and a user has a null encoded password, a malicious user (or attacker) can authenticate using a password of "null". |
| CVE-2018-15801 | High | 2018-12-19 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Spring Security versions 5.1.x prior to 5.1.2 contain an authorization bypass vulnerability during JWT issuer validation. In order to be impacted, the same private key for an honest issuer and a malicious user must be used when signing JWTs. In that case, a malicious user could fashion signed JWTs with the malicious issuer URL that may be granted for the honest issuer. |
| CVE-2017-4995 | High | 2017-11-27 | No exploit published | No public exploit | An issue was discovered in Pivotal Spring Security 4.2.0.RELEASE through 4.2.2.RELEASE, and Spring Security 5.0.0.M1. When configured to enable default typing, Jackson contained a deserialization vulnerability that could lead to arbitrary code execution. Jackson fixed this vulnerability by blacklisting known "deserialization gadgets." Spring Security configures Jackson with global default typing enabled, which means that (through the previous exploit) arbitrary code could be executed if all of the following is true: (1) Spring Security's Jackson support is being leveraged by invoking SecurityJackson2Modules.getModules(ClassLoader) or SecurityJackson2Modules.enableDefaultTyping(ObjectMapper); (2) Jackson is used to deserialize data that is not trusted (Spring Security does not perform deserialization using Jackson, so this is an explicit choice of the user); and (3) there is an unknown (Jackson is not blacklisting it already) "deserialization gadget" that allows code execution present on the classpath. Jackson provides a blacklisting approach to protecting against this type of attack, but Spring Security should be proactive against blocking unknown "deserialization gadgets" when Spring Security enables default typing. |
| 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-2014-0097 | High | 2017-05-25 | No exploit published | No public exploit | The ActiveDirectoryLdapAuthenticator in Spring Security 3.2.0 to 3.2.1 and 3.1.0 to 3.1.5 does not check the password length. If the directory allows anonymous binds then it may incorrectly authenticate a user who supplies an empty password. |
| CVE-2016-9879 | High | 2017-01-06 | No exploit published | No public exploit | An issue was discovered in Pivotal Spring Security before 3.2.10, 4.1.x before 4.1.4, and 4.2.x before 4.2.1. Spring Security does not consider URL path parameters when processing security constraints. By adding a URL path parameter with an encoded "/" to a request, 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. The unexpected presence of path parameters can cause a constraint to be bypassed. Users of Apache Tomcat (all current versions) are not affected by this vulnerability since Tomcat follows the guidance previously provided by the Servlet Expert group and strips path parameters from the value returned by getContextPath(), getServletPath(), and getPathInfo(). Users of other Servlet containers based on Apache Tomcat may or may not be affected depending on whether or not the handling of path parameters has been modified. Users of IBM WebSphere Application Server 8.5.x are known to be affected. Users of other containers that implement the Servlet specification may be affected. |