Search
Search Results (20 CVEs found)
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v3.1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-59296 | 1 Spring | 1 Micrometer | 2026-08-21 | 5.9 Medium |
| Using untrusted, non-normalized input as-is for metrics data (such as metric names, tag keys, or tag values) is a dangerous antipattern that general-purpose instrumentation should never perform. When such unsafe instrumentation is used, the application becomes vulnerable to injection and spoofing attacks because micrometer-registry-statsd and micrometer-core do not sanitize newline characters (\n, \r) by default prior to this fix. * For the StatsD registry in micrometer-registry-statsd (when using the Datadog or Etsy flavor), because the StatsD protocol is newline-delimited, this allows for line-protocol injection (cross-metric spoofing). * For LoggingMeterRegistry in micrometer-core, because metric output is printed line-by-line to log files, this allows for both metric spoofing (if downstream log-metrics scrapers or parsers ingest the log lines as separate metrics) and general log spoofing. Specifically, an application is vulnerable when all the following are true: * The application uses a vulnerable version of io.micrometer:micrometer-registry-statsd or io.micrometer:micrometer-core. * The application uses the Datadog or Etsy flavor of the StatsD registry, or uses LoggingMeterRegistry. * The application instruments meters using user-controlled, unvalidated input for metric names, tag keys, or tag values. When vulnerable, an attacker can break out of the current metric or log line by injecting line terminators. This allows them to spoof arbitrary metrics (e.g., system load, standard JVM metrics, or other business metrics) across the metrics registry namespace (either directly via StatsD protocol or via downstream log-metric scrapers/parsers), as well as inject arbitrary log entries to spoof general log records. | ||||
| CVE-2026-59318 | 1 Spring | 1 Spring Ai | 2026-08-21 | 6.5 Medium |
| In Spring AI's tool calling support, the per-request tool list is advertised to the model as a boundary but is not fully enforced when a tool call is dispatched. Under certain conditions, a tool that was not made available to the current request could be invoked, potentially leading to privilege escalation. Affected versions: Spring AI: 2.0.0 Spring AI: 1.1.0 through 1.1.8 Spring AI: 1.0.0 through 1.0.9 | ||||
| CVE-2026-59308 | 1 Spring | 1 Spring Ai | 2026-08-21 | 4.2 Medium |
| In Spring AI's Semantic Cache support, the context hash used to isolate cached responses between different system prompts could allow cached responses to be shared across unrelated contexts. Affected versions: Spring AI: 2.0.0 | ||||
| CVE-2026-59279 | 1 Spring | 1 Spring Ai | 2026-08-21 | 7.5 High |
| The MCP Streamable HTTP server transport (WebFlux and WebMvc variants) does not place any limit on the number of sessions it retains, and by default does not require clients to be authenticated. As a result, a remote attacker can cause the server to accumulate an unbounded number of sessions over time, gradually exhausting available memory and ultimately causing a Denial of Service that affects all legitimate clients. Affected versions: Spring AI: 2.0.0 | ||||
| CVE-2026-41001 | 1 Spring | 1 Spring Boot | 2026-06-23 | 5.3 Medium |
| Spring Boot's ArtemisEmbeddedConfigurationFactory uses a fixed, static path for the embedded Artemis message broker's data directory when no explicit path is configured. A local attacker on the same host can pre-create this predictable directory or place a symlink before the application starts. Affected versions: Spring Boot 4.0.0 through 4.0.6; 3.5.0 through 3.5.14; 3.4.0 through 3.4.16; 3.3.0 through 3.3.19; 2.7.0 through 2.7.33. | ||||
| CVE-2026-41000 | 1 Spring | 1 Spring Web Services | 2026-06-23 | 3.7 Low |
| Wss4jSecurityInterceptor did not consistently wire Apache WSS4J ReplayCache instances into RequestData for validation-time checks. As a result, protections against replay of UsernameToken nonces and creation timestamps, Timestamp elements, and certain SAML one-time-use semantics could be ineffective even when operators configured a replay cache on the interceptor. Affected versions: Spring Web Services 5.0.0 through 5.0.1; 4.1.0 through 4.1.3; 4.0.0 through 4.0.18; 3.1.0 through 3.1.8. | ||||
| CVE-2026-40995 | 1 Spring | 1 Spring Web Services | 2026-06-23 | 5.4 Medium |
| X509AuthenticationProvider could issue a fully authenticated X509AuthenticationToken when a presented certificate mapped to UserDetails, without applying Spring Security's standard account lifecycle checks (disabled, locked, expired, or credentials-expired accounts). Affected versions: Spring Web Services 5.0.0 through 5.0.1; 4.1.0 through 4.1.3; 4.0.0 through 4.0.18; 3.1.0 through 3.1.8. | ||||
| CVE-2026-41699 | 2 Spring, Vmware | 2 Spring For Graphql, Spring For Graphql | 2026-06-12 | 8.1 High |
| 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. | ||||
| CVE-2026-41856 | 2 Spring, Vmware | 2 Spring For Graphql, Spring For Graphql | 2026-06-12 | 7.5 High |
| 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. | ||||
| CVE-2026-41700 | 2 Spring, Vmware | 2 Spring For Graphql, Spring For Graphql | 2026-06-12 | 8.1 High |
| 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. | ||||
| CVE-2026-40998 | 1 Spring | 1 Spring Web Services | 2026-06-11 | 8.2 High |
| Jaxp13XPathTemplate evaluated XPath expressions for StreamSource and SAXSource inputs using a code path that parsed attacker-controlled XML with the JDK's default DocumentBuilderFactory behavior instead of Spring's hardened parser configuration. Applications that evaluate XPath against untrusted XML payloads could therefore be exposed to XML External Entity (XXE) style attacks. Affected versions: Spring Web Services 5.0.0 through 5.0.1; 4.1.0 through 4.1.3; 4.0.0 through 4.0.18; 3.1.0 through 3.1.8. | ||||
| CVE-2026-40999 | 1 Spring | 1 Spring Web Services | 2026-06-11 | 8.6 High |
| When WS-Addressing is used with non-anonymous ReplyTo or FaultTo addresses, Spring WS may initiate outbound connections through configured WebServiceMessageSender instances to destinations taken directly from request headers without verifying that those destinations are safe to connect to. Affected versions: Spring Web Services 5.0.0 through 5.0.1; 4.1.0 through 4.1.3; 4.0.0 through 4.0.18; 3.1.0 through 3.1.8. | ||||
| CVE-2026-40996 | 1 Spring | 1 Spring Web Services | 2026-06-11 | 4.8 Medium |
| Wss4jSecurityInterceptor defaulted allowRSA15KeyTransportAlgorithm to true, overriding Apache WSS4J's safer default for validation RequestData. Inbound WS-Security decryption could therefore accept RSA PKCS#1 v1.5 (rsa-1_5) encrypted key material unless operators explicitly reconfigured the flag. Affected versions: Spring Web Services 5.0.0 through 5.0.1; 4.1.0 through 4.1.3; 4.0.0 through 4.0.18; 3.1.0 through 3.1.8. | ||||
| CVE-2026-40994 | 1 Spring | 1 Spring Web Services | 2026-06-11 | 8.2 High |
| Wss4jSecurityInterceptor initialized its BSP (WS-I Basic Security Profile) compliance flag so that inbound validation disabled WSS4J BSP enforcement on RequestData. Services that validate WS-Security on the network could therefore accept messages that violate BSP rules, weakening protocol-level checks. Affected versions: Spring Web Services 5.0.0 through 5.0.1; 4.1.0 through 4.1.3; 4.0.0 through 4.0.18; 3.1.0 through 3.1.8. | ||||
| CVE-2026-40997 | 1 Spring | 1 Spring Web Services | 2026-06-11 | 5.3 Medium |
| Several Spring WS integration paths with Spring Security could surface detailed account state (for example locked or disabled user semantics) to remote SOAP clients through exception messages or callback outcomes, instead of failing with generic authentication errors. That behavior assists remote attackers in distinguishing valid accounts from invalid ones and inferring lifecycle state. Affected versions: Spring Web Services 5.0.0 through 5.0.1; 4.1.0 through 4.1.3; 4.0.0 through 4.0.18; 3.1.0 through 3.1.8. | ||||
| CVE-2025-22234 | 1 Spring | 1 Spring | 2026-04-15 | 5.3 Medium |
| The fix applied in CVE-2025-22228 inadvertently broke the timing attack mitigation implemented in DaoAuthenticationProvider. This can allow attackers to infer valid usernames or other authentication behavior via response-time differences under certain configurations. | ||||
| CVE-2026-22718 | 1 Spring | 1 Cli Vscode Extension | 2026-01-14 | 6.8 Medium |
| The VSCode extension for Spring CLI are vulnerable to command injection, resulting in command execution on the users machine. | ||||
| CVE-2025-41253 | 2 Spring, Vmware | 4 Spring, Webflux, Spring and 1 more | 2025-10-21 | 7.5 High |
| 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. | ||||
| CVE-2025-41243 | 1 Spring | 2 Spring, Webflux | 2025-09-17 | 10 Critical |
| Spring Cloud Gateway Server Webflux may be vulnerable to Spring Environment property modification. 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). * Spring Boot actuator is a dependency. * The Spring Cloud Gateway Server Webflux actuator web endpoint is enabled via management.endpoints.web.exposure.include=gateway. * The actuator endpoints are available to attackers. * The actuator endpoints are unsecured. | ||||
| CVE-2024-38821 | 1 Spring | 1 Webflux | 2025-01-24 | 9.1 Critical |
| Spring WebFlux applications that have Spring Security authorization rules on static resources can be bypassed under certain circumstances. For this to impact an application, all of the following must be true: * It must be a WebFlux application * It must be using Spring's static resources support * It must have a non-permitAll authorization rule applied to the static resources support | ||||
Page 1 of 1.