WaratekVRT Sign in
Reset
More filters (2)
Columns
Published to 2017-09-30✕Vendor org.springframework.security✕
Overview 7 matches · 0 protected · 0 exploited · 0 CISA KEV · 0 public PoC · 0 EPSS ≥ 0.5
7matches 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 7 100.0%
Critical 1 14.3% High 3 42.9% Medium 3 42.9% 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 7 100.0% 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 7 100.0%
split by peak 4 / year
No exploit published: 7 Medium: 3High: 3Critical: 1 not blocked: 7 No public exploit: 7
20101 No exploit published1 Medium1 not blocked1 No public exploit1 20110 20122 No exploit published2 Medium2 not blocked2 No public exploit2 20130 20140 20150 20160 20174 No exploit published4 Critical1 High3 not blocked4 No public exploit4
20102011201220132014201520162017
7 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-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-2014-3527 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.
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.
CVE-2012-5055 Medium 2012-12-05 No exploit published No public exploit DaoAuthenticationProvider in VMware SpringSource Spring Security before 2.0.8, 3.0.x before 3.0.8, and 3.1.x before 3.1.3 does not check the password if the user is not found, which makes the response delay shorter and might allow remote attackers to enumerate valid usernames via a series of login requests.
CVE-2011-2731 Medium 2012-12-05 No exploit published No public exploit Race condition in the RunAsManager mechanism in VMware SpringSource Spring Security before 2.0.7 and 3.0.x before 3.0.6 stores the Authentication object in the shared security context, which allows attackers to gain privileges via a crafted thread.
CVE-2010-3700 Medium 2010-10-29 No exploit published No public exploit VMware SpringSource Spring Security 2.x before 2.0.6 and 3.x before 3.0.4, and Acegi Security 1.0.0 through 1.0.7, as used in IBM WebSphere Application Server (WAS) 6.1 and 7.0, allows remote attackers to bypass security constraints via a path parameter.