| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| Spring Framework MVC applications can be vulnerable to a “Path Traversal Vulnerability” when deployed on a non-compliant Servlet container.
An application can be vulnerable when all the following are true:
* the application is deployed as a WAR or with an embedded Servlet container
* the Servlet container does not reject suspicious sequences https://jakarta.ee/specifications/servlet/6.1/jakarta-servlet-spec-6.1.html#uri-path-canonicalization
* the application serves static resources https://docs.spring.io/spring-framework/reference/web/webmvc/mvc-config/static-resources.html#page-title with Spring resource handling
We have verified that applications deployed on Apache Tomcat or Eclipse Jetty are not vulnerable, as long as default security features are not disabled in the configuration. Because we cannot check exploits against all Servlet containers and configuration variants, we strongly recommend upgrading your application. |
| Spring Cloud Config, versions 2.2.x prior to 2.2.3, versions 2.1.x prior to 2.1.9, and older unsupported versions allow applications to serve arbitrary configuration files through the spring-cloud-config-server module. A malicious user, or attacker, can send a request using a specially crafted URL that can lead to a directory traversal attack. |
| In spring cloud gateway versions prior to 3.1.1+ and 3.0.7+ , applications are vulnerable to a code injection attack when the Gateway Actuator endpoint is enabled, exposed and unsecured. A remote attacker could make a maliciously crafted request that could allow arbitrary remote execution on the remote host. |
| In Spring Cloud Function versions 3.1.6, 3.2.2 and older unsupported versions, when using routing functionality it is possible for a user to provide a specially crafted SpEL as a routing-expression that may result in remote code execution and access to local resources. |
| A Spring MVC or Spring WebFlux application running on JDK 9+ may be vulnerable to remote code execution (RCE) via data binding. The specific exploit requires the application to run on Tomcat as a WAR deployment. If the application is deployed as a Spring Boot executable jar, i.e. the default, it is not vulnerable to the exploit. However, the nature of the vulnerability is more general, and there may be other ways to exploit it. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| In Spring Framework versions 5.3.0 - 5.3.38 and older unsupported versions, it is possible for a user to provide a specially crafted Spring Expression Language (SpEL) expression that may cause a denial of service (DoS) condition.
Specifically, an application is vulnerable when the following is true:
* The application evaluates user-supplied SpEL expressions. |
| 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. |
| In Spring Cloud Contract, versions 4.1.x prior to 4.1.1, versions 4.0.x prior to 4.0.5, and versions 3.1.x prior to 3.1.10, test execution is vulnerable to local information disclosure via temporary directory created with unsafe permissions through the shaded com.google.guava:guava dependency in the org.springframework.cloud:spring-cloud-contract-shade dependency.
|
| The spring-security.xsd file inside the
spring-security-config jar is world writable which means that if it were
extracted it could be written by anyone with access to the file system.
While there are no known exploits, this is an example of “CWE-732:
Incorrect Permission Assignment for Critical Resource” and could result
in an exploit. Users should update to the latest version of Spring
Security to mitigate any future exploits found around this issue.
|
| Applications that allow HTTP PATCH access to resources exposed by Spring Data REST in versions 3.6.0 - 3.5.5, 3.7.0 - 3.7.2, and older unsupported versions, if an attacker knows about the structure of the underlying domain model, they can craft HTTP requests that expose hidden entity attributes. |
| Spring MVC controller methods with an @RequestBody byte[] method parameter are vulnerable to a DoS attack. |
| Spring Security, versions 5.7 prior to 5.7.5, and 5.6 prior to 5.6.9, and older unsupported versions could be susceptible to a privilege escalation under certain conditions. A malicious user or attacker can modify a request initiated by the Client (via the browser) to the Authorization Server which can lead to a privilege escalation on the subsequent approval. This scenario can happen if the Authorization Server responds with an OAuth2 Access Token Response containing an empty scope list (per RFC 6749, Section 5.1) on the subsequent request to the token endpoint to obtain the access token. |
| Spring Security, versions 5.7 prior to 5.7.5 and 5.6 prior to 5.6.9 could be susceptible to authorization rules bypass via forward or include dispatcher types. Specifically, an application is vulnerable when all of the following are true: The application expects that Spring Security applies security to forward and include dispatcher types. The application uses the AuthorizationFilter either manually or via the authorizeHttpRequests() method. The application configures the FilterChainProxy to apply to forward and/or include requests (e.g. spring.security.filter.dispatcher-types = request, error, async, forward, include). The application may forward or include the request to a higher privilege-secured endpoint.The application configures Spring Security to apply to every dispatcher type via authorizeHttpRequests().shouldFilterAllDispatcherTypes(true) |
| In Spring Boot versions 3.0.0 - 3.0.5, 2.7.0 - 2.7.10, and older unsupported versions, an application that is deployed to Cloud Foundry could be susceptible to a security bypass. Users of affected versions should apply the following mitigation: 3.0.x users should upgrade to 3.0.6+. 2.7.x users should upgrade to 2.7.11+. Users of older, unsupported versions should upgrade to 3.0.6+ or 2.7.11+. |
| Spring Tools 4 for Eclipse version 4.16.0 and below as well as VSCode extensions such as Spring Boot Tools, Concourse CI Pipeline Editor, Bosh Editor and Cloudfoundry Manifest YML Support version 1.39.0 and below all use Snakeyaml library for YAML editing support. This library allows for some special syntax in the YAML that under certain circumstances allows for potentially harmful remote code execution by the attacker. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in springframework-social before 1.1.3. |
