| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| An application using Micrometer Tracing with W3C baggage propagation in the Brave bridge is vulnerable to denial of service (DoS) due to unbounded object allocation when extracting incoming baggage headers.
Specifically, an application is vulnerable when all the following are true:
* The application uses a vulnerable version of io.micrometer:micrometer-tracing-bridge-brave.
* W3C propagation is active (either configured manually or active by default, such as in Spring Boot 3.x+).
* Baggage propagation is enabled (which is the default in Spring Boot 3.x+) and a baggage manager (such as BraveBaggageManager) is configured to handle baggage fields.
* The application processes requests or messages from untrusted sources with baggage headers which it normally should not, see: https://www.w3.org/TR/trace-context/#security-considerations .
* Network components including the (HTTP) server that receives the request do not limit the header size or the limit is high enough to cause issues.
The last two points are very important: normally this should not affect applications because they should not receive untrusted and unlimited input for baggage.
* The application processes requests or messages from untrusted sources with baggage headers.
When extracting baggage from the W3C baggage header, incoming entries are parsed without enforcing limits on the number of entries or header size as mandated by the W3C Baggage specification. An attacker can send requests or messages with artificially inflated baggage headers containing many key-value pairs, causing unconditional BaggageField allocations per entry. This leads to garbage collection pressure, high CPU usage, and potential application crash via OutOfMemoryError. |
| Spring Data Commons, versions 1.13 prior to 1.13.12 and 2.0 prior to 2.0.7, used in combination with XMLBeam 1.4.14 or earlier versions, contains a property binder vulnerability caused by improper restriction of XML external entity references as underlying library XMLBeam does not restrict external reference expansion. An unauthenticated remote malicious user can supply specially crafted request parameters against Spring Data's projection-based request payload binding to access arbitrary files on the system. |
| Spring for GraphQL applications are vulnerable to Unsafe Deserialization when processing paginated GraphQL queries. An attacker can craft a malicious GraphQL request that can lead to Remote Code Execution when the application exposes a paginated (Connection) field and the classpath contains specific classes that can be leveraged during deserialization.
Affected versions:
Spring for GraphQL 2.0.0 through 2.0.3; 1.4.0 through 1.4.5; 1.3.0 through 1.3.8. |
| The Spring GraphQL annotation detection mechanism for @Controller data fetchers may not correctly resolve annotations on methods within type hierarchies. This can be an issue if such annotations are used for authorization decisions. When all conditions are met, security annotations can be ignored at runtime.
Affected versions:
Spring for GraphQL 2.0.0 through 2.0.3; 1.4.0 through 1.4.5; 1.3.0 through 1.3.8; 1.0.0 through 1.0.6. |
| Spring for GraphQL applications that have enabled the WebSocket transport are vulnerable to Cross-Site WebSocket Hijacking. An attacker can trick an authenticated user into visiting a malicious page, allowing the attacker to execute arbitrary GraphQL operations with the victim's credentials.
Affected versions:
Spring for GraphQL 2.0.0 through 2.0.3; 1.4.0 through 1.4.5; 1.3.0 through 1.3.8; 1.0.0 through 1.0.6. |
| 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. |
| The following versions of Spring Cloud Gateway Server Webflux may be vulnerable to the ability to expose environment variables and system properties to attackers.
An application should be considered vulnerable when all the following are true:
* The application is using Spring Cloud Gateway Server Webflux (Spring Cloud Gateway Server WebMVC is not vulnerable).
* An admin or untrusted third party using Spring Expression Language (SpEL) to access environment variables or system properties via routes.
* An untrusted third party could create a route that uses SpEL to access environment variables or system properties if: * The Spring Cloud Gateway Server Webflux actuator web endpoint is enabled via management.endpoints.web.exposure.include=gateway and management.endpoint.gateway.enabled=trueor management.endpoint.gateway.access=unrestricte.
* The actuator endpoints are available to attackers.
* The actuator endpoints are unsecured. |
| STOMP over WebSocket applications may be vulnerable to a security bypass that allows an attacker to send unauthorized messages.
Affected Spring Products and VersionsSpring Framework:
* 6.2.0 - 6.2.11
* 6.1.0 - 6.1.23
* 6.0.x - 6.0.29
* 5.3.0 - 5.3.45
* Older, unsupported versions are also affected.
MitigationUsers of affected versions should upgrade to the corresponding fixed version.
Affected version(s)Fix versionAvailability6.2.x6.2.12OSS6.1.x6.1.24 Commercial https://enterprise.spring.io/ 6.0.xN/A Out of support https://spring.io/projects/spring-framework#support 5.3.x5.3.46 Commercial https://enterprise.spring.io/ No further mitigation steps are necessary.
CreditThis vulnerability was discovered and responsibly reported by Jannis Kaiser. |
| The Spring Security annotation detection mechanism may not correctly resolve annotations on methods within type hierarchies with a parameterized super type with unbounded generics. This can be an issue when using @PreAuthorize and other method security annotations, resulting in an authorization bypass.
Your application may be affected by this if you are using Spring Security's @EnableMethodSecurity feature.
You are not affected by this if you are not using @EnableMethodSecurity or if you do not use security annotations on methods in generic superclasses or generic interfaces.
This CVE is published in conjunction with CVE-2025-41249 https://spring.io/security/cve-2025-41249 . |
| The Spring Framework annotation detection mechanism may not correctly resolve annotations on methods within type hierarchies with a parameterized super type with unbounded generics. This can be an issue if such annotations are used for authorization decisions.
Your application may be affected by this if you are using Spring Security's @EnableMethodSecurity feature.
You are not affected by this if you are not using @EnableMethodSecurity or if you do not use security annotations on methods in generic superclasses or generic interfaces.
This CVE is published in conjunction with CVE-2025-41248 https://spring.io/security/cve-2025-41248 . |
| Spring Security, versions 4.2.x up to 4.2.12, and older unsupported versions support plain text passwords using PlaintextPasswordEncoder. If an application using an affected version of Spring Security is leveraging PlaintextPasswordEncoder and a user has a null encoded password, a malicious user (or attacker) can authenticate using a password of "null". |
| 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. |
| 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.
|
