Overview 15 matches · 8 protected · 1 exploited · 0 CISA KEV · 2 public PoC · 1 EPSS ≥ 0.5
Protected by Waratek
8
53.3%
Rule in development
0
0.0%
Mitigation candidate
0
0.0%
No exploit published
7
46.7%
blocked by ARMR today
8
53.3%
partly blocked
0
0.0%
not blocked
7
46.7%
not established
0
0.0%
unrecorded
0
0.0%
Exploited
1
6.7%
Working exploit published
1
6.7%
Proof of concept only
0
0.0%
Forecast only
0
0.0%
No public exploit
13
86.7%
split by
peak 5 / year
20121
No exploit published1
High1
not blocked1
No public exploit1
20130
20140
20150
20161
Protected by Waratek1
High1
blocked by ARMR today1
No public exploit1
20172
Protected by Waratek1
No exploit published1
High2
blocked by ARMR today1
not blocked1
No public exploit2
20183
Protected by Waratek1
No exploit published2
High3
blocked by ARMR today1
not blocked2
No public exploit3
20190
20200
20211
Protected by Waratek1
High1
blocked by ARMR today1
No public exploit1
20220
20232
No exploit published2
High2
not blocked2
No public exploit2
20245
Protected by Waratek4
No exploit published1
High5
blocked by ARMR today4
not blocked1
Exploited1
Working exploit published1
No public exploit3
2012201420162018202020222024
| CVE | Severity | Published▾ | Status | Exploitation | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2024-38819 | High | 2024-12-19 | Protected by Waratek | Working exploit published | Applications serving static resources through the functional web frameworks WebMvc.fn or WebFlux.fn are vulnerable to path traversal attacks. An attacker can craft malicious HTTP requests and obtain any file on the file system that is also accessible to the process in which the Spring application is running. |
| CVE-2024-38816 | High | 2024-09-13 | Protected by Waratek | Exploited | Applications serving static resources through the functional web frameworks WebMvc.fn or WebFlux.fn are vulnerable to path traversal attacks. An attacker can craft malicious HTTP requests and obtain any file on the file system that is also accessible to the process in which the Spring application is running. Specifically, an application is vulnerable when both of the following are true: * the web application uses RouterFunctions to serve static resources * resource handling is explicitly configured with a FileSystemResource location However, malicious requests are blocked and rejected when any of the following is true: * the Spring Security HTTP Firewall https://docs.spring.io/spring-security/reference/servlet/exploits/firewall.html is in use * the application runs on Tomcat or Jetty |
| CVE-2024-22262 | High | 2024-04-16 | Protected by Waratek | No public exploit | 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. This is the same as CVE-2024-22259 https://spring.io/security/cve-2024-22259 and CVE-2024-22243 https://spring.io/security/cve-2024-22243 , but with different input. |
| CVE-2024-22259 | High | 2024-03-16 | Protected by Waratek | No public exploit | Applications that use UriComponentsBuilder in Spring Framework 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. This is the same as CVE-2024-22243 https://spring.io/security/cve-2024-22243 , but with different input. |
| CVE-2024-22233 | High | 2024-01-22 | No exploit published | No public exploit | In Spring Framework versions 6.0.15 and 6.1.2, 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 * Spring Security 6.1.6+ or 6.2.1+ is on the classpath Typically, Spring Boot applications need the org.springframework.boot:spring-boot-starter-web and org.springframework.boot:spring-boot-starter-security dependencies to meet all conditions. |
| 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-2021-22118 | High | 2021-05-27 | Protected by Waratek | No public exploit | In Spring Framework, versions 5.2.x prior to 5.2.15 and versions 5.3.x prior to 5.3.7, a WebFlux application is vulnerable to a privilege escalation: by (re)creating the temporary storage directory, a locally authenticated malicious user can read or modify files that have been uploaded to the WebFlux application, or overwrite arbitrary files with multipart request data. |
| CVE-2018-11040 | High | 2018-06-25 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Spring Framework, versions 5.0.x prior to 5.0.7 and 4.3.x prior to 4.3.18 and older unsupported versions, allows web applications to enable cross-domain requests via JSONP (JSON with Padding) through AbstractJsonpResponseBodyAdvice for REST controllers and MappingJackson2JsonView for browser requests. Both are not enabled by default in Spring Framework nor Spring Boot, however, when MappingJackson2JsonView is configured in an application, JSONP support is automatically ready to use through the "jsonp" and "callback" JSONP parameters, enabling cross-domain requests. |
| CVE-2018-1258 | High | 2018-05-11 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Spring Framework version 5.0.5 when used in combination with any versions of Spring Security contains an authorization bypass when using method security. An unauthorized malicious user can gain unauthorized access to methods that should be restricted. |
| CVE-2018-1272 | High | 2018-04-06 | Protected by Waratek | No public exploit | Spring Framework, versions 5.0 prior to 5.0.5 and versions 4.3 prior to 4.3.15 and older unsupported versions, provide client-side support for multipart requests. When Spring MVC or Spring WebFlux server application (server A) receives input from a remote client, and then uses that input to make a multipart request to another server (server B), it can be exposed to an attack, where an extra multipart is inserted in the content of the request from server A, causing server B to use the wrong value for a part it expects. This could to lead privilege escalation, for example, if the part content represents a username or user roles. |
| 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-2014-0225 | High | 2017-05-25 | Protected by Waratek | No public exploit | When processing user provided XML documents, the Spring Framework 4.0.0 to 4.0.4, 3.0.0 to 3.2.8, and possibly earlier unsupported versions did not disable by default the resolution of URI references in a DTD declaration. This enabled an XXE attack. |
| CVE-2016-9878 | High | 2016-12-29 | Protected by Waratek | No public exploit | An issue was discovered in Pivotal Spring Framework before 3.2.18, 4.2.x before 4.2.9, and 4.3.x before 4.3.5. Paths provided to the ResourceServlet were not properly sanitized and as a result exposed to directory traversal attacks. |
| CVE-2011-2730 | High | 2012-12-05 | No exploit published | No public exploit | VMware SpringSource Spring Framework before 2.5.6.SEC03, 2.5.7.SR023, and 3.x before 3.0.6, when a container supports Expression Language (EL), evaluates EL expressions in tags twice, which allows remote attackers to obtain sensitive information via a (1) name attribute in a (a) spring:hasBindErrors tag; (2) path attribute in a (b) spring:bind or (c) spring:nestedpath tag; (3) arguments, (4) code, (5) text, (6) var, (7) scope, or (8) message attribute in a (d) spring:message or (e) spring:theme tag; or (9) var, (10) scope, or (11) value attribute in a (f) spring:transform tag, aka "Expression Language Injection." |