Overview 35 matches · 31 in Waratek scope · 0 protected · 0 exploited · 0 CISA KEV · 2 public PoC · 1 EPSS ≥ 0.5
35matches
31in Waratek scope88.6%
0protected0.0%
0exploited0.0%
0CISA KEV0.0%
2public PoC5.7%
1EPSS ≥ 0.52.9%
Protected by Waratek
0
0.0%
Rule in development
0
0.0%
Mitigation candidate
0
0.0%
No exploit published
31
88.6%
Outside Waratek scope
2
5.7%
Not applicable
2
5.7%
Withdrawn CVE
0
0.0%
blocked by ARMR today
0
0.0%
partly blocked
0
0.0%
not blocked
35
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
2
5.7%
Forecast only
0
0.0%
No public exploit
33
94.3%
split by
peak 21 / year
20141
No exploit published1
Medium1
not blocked1
No public exploit1
20150
20160
20172
No exploit published2
Medium2
not blocked2
No public exploit2
20181
No exploit published1
Medium1
not blocked1
No public exploit1
20190
20202
Outside Waratek scope2
High1
Medium1
not blocked2
Proof of concept only1
No public exploit1
20210
20220
20232
No exploit published2
High2
not blocked2
No public exploit2
20244
No exploit published2
Not applicable2
High1
Medium3
not blocked4
Proof of concept only1
No public exploit3
20252
No exploit published2
Medium2
not blocked2
No public exploit2
202621
No exploit published21
Critical3
High3
Medium13
Low2
not blocked21
No public exploit21
2014201620182020202220242026
| CVE | Severity | Published▾ | Status | Exploitation | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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-2026-47890 | 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-2026-40986 | Medium | 2026-06-11 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Spring Web Flow's JavaScript RemotingHandler renders the body of an error response as HTML even when the response is not "text/html", which can result in a scripting attack in the user's browser if the error response from the server contains error details with input reflected from an attacker. Affected versions: Spring Web Flow 4.0.0; 3.0.0 through 3.0.1; 2.5.0 through 2.5.1. |
| CVE-2026-40985 | Medium | 2026-06-11 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Applications that configure the WebFlowELExpressionParser are vulnerable to the use of malicious Unified EL expressions. Affected versions: Spring Web Flow 4.0.0; 3.0.0 through 3.0.1; 2.5.0 through 2.5.1. |
| 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-2026-41847 | 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-2026-41845 | High | 2026-06-09 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Due to incorrect escaping, the use of JavaScriptUtils.javaScriptEscape() may lead to JavaScript code injection in the browser, 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-2026-41842 | High | 2026-06-09 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Spring MVC and WebFlux applications are vulnerable to Denial of Service (DoS) 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-2026-41838 | High | 2026-06-09 | No exploit published | No public exploit | IDs for WebSocket sessions in the spring-websocket module are not cryptographically unpredictable, which may be possible to exploit in combination with inadequate authorization rules. 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-2026-22741 | Low | 2026-04-29 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Spring MVC and WebFlux applications are vulnerable to cache poisoning 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 configuring the resource chain support https://docs.spring.io/spring-framework/reference/web/webmvc/mvc-config/static-resources.html#page-title with caching enabled * the application adds support for encoded resources resolution * the resource cache must be empty when the attacker has access to the application When all the conditions above are met, the attacker can send malicious requests and poison the resource cache with resources using the wrong encoding. This can cause a denial of service by breaking the front-end application for clients. |
| 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-2026-22735 | Low | 2026-03-20 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Spring MVC and WebFlux applications are vulnerable to stream corruption when using Server-Sent Events (SSE). This issue affects Spring Foundation: 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-2025-41234 | 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-2024-38809 | Medium | 2024-09-27 | Not applicable | No public exploit | Applications that parse ETags from "If-Match" or "If-None-Match" request headers are vulnerable to DoS attack. Users of affected versions should upgrade to the corresponding fixed version. Users of older, unsupported versions could enforce a size limit on "If-Match" and "If-None-Match" headers, e.g. through a Filter. |
| CVE-2024-22243 | High | 2024-02-23 | Not applicable | Proof of concept only | Applications that use UriComponentsBuilder to parse an externally provided URL (e.g. through a query parameter) AND perform validation checks on the host of the parsed URL may be vulnerable to a open redirect https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/601.html attack or to a SSRF attack if the URL is used after passing validation checks. |
| CVE-2023-34053 | High | 2023-11-28 | No exploit published | No public exploit | In Spring Framework versions 6.0.0 - 6.0.13, it is possible for a user to provide specially crafted HTTP requests that may cause a denial-of-service (DoS) condition. Specifically, an application is vulnerable when all of the following are true: * the application uses Spring MVC or Spring WebFlux * io.micrometer:micrometer-core is on the classpath * an ObservationRegistry is configured in the application to record observations Typically, Spring Boot applications need the org.springframework.boot:spring-boot-actuator dependency to meet all conditions. |
| CVE-2023-20860 | High | 2023-03-27 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Spring Framework running version 6.0.0 - 6.0.6 or 5.3.0 - 5.3.25 using "**" as a pattern in Spring Security configuration with the mvcRequestMatcher creates a mismatch in pattern matching between Spring Security and Spring MVC, and the potential for a security bypass. |
| CVE-2020-5398 | High | 2020-01-17 | Outside Waratek scope | Proof of concept only | In Spring Framework, versions 5.2.x prior to 5.2.3, versions 5.1.x prior to 5.1.13, and versions 5.0.x prior to 5.0.16, an application is vulnerable to a reflected file download (RFD) attack when it sets a "Content-Disposition" header in the response where the filename attribute is derived from user supplied input. |
| CVE-2013-6430 | Medium | 2020-01-10 | Outside Waratek scope | No public exploit | The JavaScriptUtils.javaScriptEscape method in web/util/JavaScriptUtils.java in Spring MVC in Spring Framework before 3.2.2 does not properly escape certain characters, which allows remote attackers to conduct cross-site scripting (XSS) attacks via a (1) line separator or (2) paragraph separator Unicode character or (3) left or (4) right angle bracket. |
| 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-2017-8039 | Medium | 2017-11-27 | No exploit published | No public exploit | An issue was discovered in Pivotal Spring Web Flow through 2.4.5. Applications that do not change the value of the MvcViewFactoryCreator useSpringBinding property which is disabled by default (i.e., set to 'false') can be vulnerable to malicious EL expressions in view states that process form submissions but do not have a sub-element to declare explicit data binding property mappings. NOTE: this issue exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2017-4971. |
| CVE-2017-4971 | Medium | 2017-06-13 | No exploit published | No public exploit | An issue was discovered in Pivotal Spring Web Flow through 2.4.4. Applications that do not change the value of the MvcViewFactoryCreator useSpringBinding property which is disabled by default (i.e., set to 'false') can be vulnerable to malicious EL expressions in view states that process form submissions but do not have a sub-element to declare explicit data binding property mappings. |
| 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. |