Filtered by vendor Pivotal Software Subscriptions
Filtered by product Spring Framework Subscriptions
Total 10 CVE
CVE Vendors Products Updated CVSS v3.1
CVE-2013-6429 3 Pivotal Software, Redhat, Vmware 4 Spring Framework, Jboss Amq, Jboss Fuse and 1 more 2024-08-06 N/A
The SourceHttpMessageConverter in Spring MVC in Spring Framework before 3.2.5 and 4.0.0.M1 through 4.0.0.RC1 does not disable external entity resolution, which allows remote attackers to read arbitrary files, cause a denial of service, and conduct CSRF attacks via crafted XML, aka an XML External Entity (XXE) issue, and a different vulnerability than CVE-2013-4152 and CVE-2013-7315.
CVE-2013-6430 2 Pivotal Software, Redhat 3 Spring Framework, Jboss Amq, Jboss Fuse 2024-08-06 5.4 Medium
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-2014-3578 2 Pivotal Software, Redhat 5 Spring Framework, Jboss Bpms, Jboss Brms and 2 more 2024-08-06 N/A
Directory traversal vulnerability in Pivotal Spring Framework 3.x before 3.2.9 and 4.0 before 4.0.5 allows remote attackers to read arbitrary files via a crafted URL.
CVE-2014-3625 3 Pivotal Software, Redhat, Vmware 7 Spring Framework, Jboss Amq, Jboss Bpms and 4 more 2024-08-06 N/A
Directory traversal vulnerability in Pivotal Spring Framework 3.0.4 through 3.2.x before 3.2.12, 4.0.x before 4.0.8, and 4.1.x before 4.1.2 allows remote attackers to read arbitrary files via unspecified vectors, related to static resource handling.
CVE-2014-1904 2 Pivotal Software, Redhat 3 Spring Framework, Jboss Amq, Jboss Fuse 2024-08-06 N/A
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.
CVE-2014-0225 3 Pivotal Software, Redhat, Vmware 4 Spring Framework, Jboss Amq, Jboss Fuse and 1 more 2024-08-06 N/A
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-2015-3192 4 Fedoraproject, Pivotal Software, Redhat and 1 more 8 Fedora, Spring Framework, Jboss Amq and 5 more 2024-08-06 N/A
Pivotal Spring Framework before 3.2.14 and 4.x before 4.1.7 do not properly process inline DTD declarations when DTD is not entirely disabled, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (memory consumption and out-of-memory errors) via a crafted XML file.
CVE-2015-0201 2 Pivotal Software, Vmware 2 Spring Framework, Spring Framework 2024-08-06 N/A
The Java SockJS client in Pivotal Spring Framework 4.1.x before 4.1.5 generates predictable session ids, which allows remote attackers to send messages to other sessions via unspecified vectors.
CVE-2016-9878 3 Pivotal Software, Redhat, Vmware 4 Spring Framework, Jboss Amq, Jboss Fuse and 1 more 2024-08-06 N/A
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-2016-5007 2 Pivotal Software, Vmware 3 Spring Framework, Spring Framework, Spring Security 2024-08-06 N/A
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.