Spring Framework applications that use Spring's data binding infrastructure to apply user-supplied property paths onto a target object may be vulnerable to a Denial of Service (DoS) attack. 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

A Spring WebFlux application that supports WebSocket connections may expose indirectly sensitive user information by including request headers in an exception reason. 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

A WebFlux application running on the Jetty 12 Core reactive adapter serializes response cookies without the sameSite attribute. Spring Framework 7.0.0 - 7.0.8 Spring Framework 6.2.0 - 6.2.19

A Spring RSocket application is exposed to a memory leak via a malformed SETUP frame. 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 5.2.0.RELEASE - 5.2.25.RELEASE

Applications that evaluate user-supplied Spring Expression Language (SpEL) expressions may be vulnerable to a Denial of Service (DoS) attack when the power operator (^) is used with a BigDecimal or BigInteger operand and a large exponent value. 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

The PartEventHttpMessageReader in Spring WebFlux does not enforce the maxPartSize limit when maxInMemorySize is set to -1. Spring Framework 7.0.0 - 7.0.8 Spring Framework 6.2.0 - 6.2.19 Spring Framework 6.1.0 - 6.1.28

Applications which accept user-supplied Spring Expression Language (SpEL) expressions may be vulnerable to a Denial of Service (DoS) attack if the evaluation of a SpEL expression triggers unbounded cache growth.

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.

Applications that evaluate user-supplied Spring Expression Language (SpEL) expressions are vulnerable to an Algorithmic Denial of Service (DoS). By providing a specially crafted expression, an attacker can trigger excessive resource consumption during evaluation, leading to application degradation or unavailability.

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.

An integer overflow vulnerability exists in the evaluation logic of the Spring Expression Language (SpEL). An attacker can exploit this by supplying a specially crafted SpEL expression that triggers excessive resource consumption, resulting in a Denial of Service (DoS).

Affected versions: Spring Framework 5.3.0 through 5.3.48.

Applications may be vulnerable to a Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) attack if an attacker is able to provide a pattern which is then directly or indirectly supplied to one of the following methods in AntPathMatcher: match(String pattern, String path), matchStart(String pattern, String path), extractUriTemplateVariables(String pattern, String path).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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 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.

A flaw was found in Spring Framework. Certain versions of Spring Framework's Expression Language were not restricting the size of Spring Expressions. This could allow an attacker to craft a malicious Spring Expression to cause a denial of service on the server.

A flaw was found in Spring Framework. Applications that handle file uploads are vulnerable to a denial of service (DoS) attack if they rely on data binding to set a MultipartFile or javax.servlet.Part to a field in a model object.

In Spring Framework versions 5.3.0 - 5.3.18, 5.2.0 - 5.2.20, and older unsupported versions, the patterns for disallowedFields on a DataBinder are case sensitive which means a field is not effectively protected unless it is listed with both upper and lower case for the first character of the field, including upper and lower case for the first character of all nested fields within the property path.

A flaw was found in the Spring Framework. This flaw allows an attacker to craft a special Spring Expression, causing a denial of service.

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.

In Spring Framework versions 5.2.0 - 5.2.8, 5.1.0 - 5.1.17, 5.0.0 - 5.0.18, 4.3.0 - 4.3.28, and older unsupported versions, the protections against RFD attacks from CVE-2015-5211 may be bypassed depending on the browser used through the use of a jsessionid path parameter.

A flaw was found in springframework in versions prior to 5.0.16, 5.1.13, and 5.2.3. A reflected file download (RFD) attack is possible when a "Content-Disposition" header is set in response to where the filename attribute is derived from user supplied input. The highest threat from this vulnerability is to data confidentiality and integrity as well as system availability.

Spring Security versions 5.1.x prior to 5.1.2 contain an authorization bypass vulnerability during JWT issuer validation. In order to be impacted, the same private key for an honest issuer and a malicious user must be used when signing JWTs. In that case, a malicious user could fashion signed JWTs with the malicious issuer URL that may be granted for the honest issuer.

Pivotal Spring Framework is vulnerable to a denial of service, caused by improper handling of range request by the ResourceHttpRequestHandler. By adding a range header with a high number of ranges, a remote attacker could exploit this vulnerability to cause a denial of service condition.

Pivotal Spring Framework could allow a remote attacker to bypass security restrictions, caused by a flaw in AbstractJsonpResponseBodyAdvice for REST controllers and MappingJackson2JsonView. By sending a specially-crafted request, an attacker could exploit this vulnerability to perform cross-domain requests.

A flaw was found in Spring Security in combination with Spring Framework versions prior to 5.0.6 contains an authorization bypass when using method security. An unauthorized malicious user can gain unauthorized access to methods that should be restricted.

References: https://pivotal.io/security/cve-2018-1258

Pivotal Spring Framework could allow a remote authenticated attacker to gain elevated privileges on the system, caused by improper input validation. By sending a specially-crafted request, an attacker could exploit this vulnerability to gain elevated privileges.

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.

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 (as well as other unsupported versions) 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.