Total
20 CVE
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v2 | CVSS v3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2023-34042 | 1 Vmware | 1 Spring Security | 2024-02-12 | N/A | 5.5 MEDIUM |
| 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. | |||||
| CVE-2023-34034 | 1 Vmware | 1 Spring Security | 2023-12-10 | N/A | 9.8 CRITICAL |
| Using "**" as a pattern in Spring Security configuration for WebFlux creates a mismatch in pattern matching between Spring Security and Spring WebFlux, and the potential for a security bypass. | |||||
| CVE-2023-34035 | 1 Vmware | 1 Spring Security | 2023-12-10 | N/A | 5.3 MEDIUM |
| Spring Security versions 5.8 prior to 5.8.5, 6.0 prior to 6.0.5, and 6.1 prior to 6.1.2 could be susceptible to authorization rule misconfiguration if the application uses requestMatchers(String) and multiple servlets, one of them being Spring MVC’s DispatcherServlet. (DispatcherServlet is a Spring MVC component that maps HTTP endpoints to methods on @Controller-annotated classes.) Specifically, an application is vulnerable when all of the following are true: * Spring MVC is on the classpath * Spring Security is securing more than one servlet in a single application (one of them being Spring MVC’s DispatcherServlet) * The application uses requestMatchers(String) to refer to endpoints that are not Spring MVC endpoints An application is not vulnerable if any of the following is true: * The application does not have Spring MVC on the classpath * The application secures no servlets other than Spring MVC’s DispatcherServlet * The application uses requestMatchers(String) only for Spring MVC endpoints | |||||
| CVE-2023-20862 | 2 Netapp, Vmware | 2 Active Iq Unified Manager, Spring Security | 2023-12-10 | N/A | 6.3 MEDIUM |
| In Spring Security, versions 5.7.x prior to 5.7.8, versions 5.8.x prior to 5.8.3, and versions 6.0.x prior to 6.0.3, the logout support does not properly clean the security context if using serialized versions. Additionally, it is not possible to explicitly save an empty security context to the HttpSessionSecurityContextRepository. This vulnerability can keep users authenticated even after they performed logout. Users of affected versions should apply the following mitigation. 5.7.x users should upgrade to 5.7.8. 5.8.x users should upgrade to 5.8.3. 6.0.x users should upgrade to 6.0.3. | |||||
| CVE-2022-31690 | 2 Netapp, Vmware | 2 Active Iq Unified Manager, Spring Security | 2023-12-10 | N/A | 8.1 HIGH |
| 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. | |||||
| CVE-2022-31692 | 2 Netapp, Vmware | 2 Active Iq Unified Manager, Spring Security | 2023-12-10 | N/A | 9.8 CRITICAL |
| 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) | |||||
| CVE-2022-22976 | 3 Netapp, Oracle, Vmware | 3 Active Iq Unified Manager, Financial Services Crime And Compliance Management Studio, Spring Security | 2023-12-10 | 4.3 MEDIUM | 5.3 MEDIUM |
| Spring Security versions 5.5.x prior to 5.5.7, 5.6.x prior to 5.6.4, and earlier unsupported versions contain an integer overflow vulnerability. When using the BCrypt class with the maximum work factor (31), the encoder does not perform any salt rounds, due to an integer overflow error. The default settings are not affected by this CVE. | |||||
| CVE-2022-22978 | 3 Netapp, Oracle, Vmware | 3 Active Iq Unified Manager, Financial Services Crime And Compliance Management Studio, Spring Security | 2023-12-10 | 7.5 HIGH | 9.8 CRITICAL |
| In spring security versions prior to 5.4.11+, 5.5.7+ , 5.6.4+ and older unsupported versions, RegexRequestMatcher can easily be misconfigured to be bypassed on some servlet containers. Applications using RegexRequestMatcher with `.` in the regular expression are possibly vulnerable to an authorization bypass. | |||||
| CVE-2021-22119 | 2 Oracle, Vmware | 2 Communications Cloud Native Core Policy, Spring Security | 2023-12-10 | 5.0 MEDIUM | 7.5 HIGH |
| Spring Security versions 5.5.x prior to 5.5.1, 5.4.x prior to 5.4.7, 5.3.x prior to 5.3.10 and 5.2.x prior to 5.2.11 are susceptible to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) attack via the initiation of the Authorization Request in an OAuth 2.0 Client Web and WebFlux application. A malicious user or attacker can send multiple requests initiating the Authorization Request for the Authorization Code Grant, which has the potential of exhausting system resources using a single session or multiple sessions. | |||||
| CVE-2021-22112 | 3 Oracle, Pivotal Software, Vmware | 8 Communications Element Manager, Communications Interactive Session Recorder, Communications Unified Inventory Management and 5 more | 2023-12-10 | 9.0 HIGH | 8.8 HIGH |
| Spring Security 5.4.x prior to 5.4.4, 5.3.x prior to 5.3.8.RELEASE, 5.2.x prior to 5.2.9.RELEASE, and older unsupported versions can fail to save the SecurityContext if it is changed more than once in a single request.A malicious user cannot cause the bug to happen (it must be programmed in). However, if the application's intent is to only allow the user to run with elevated privileges in a small portion of the application, the bug can be leveraged to extend those privileges to the rest of the application. | |||||
| CVE-2020-5408 | 2 Pivotal Software, Vmware | 2 Spring Security, Spring Security | 2023-12-10 | 4.0 MEDIUM | 6.5 MEDIUM |
| Spring Security versions 5.3.x prior to 5.3.2, 5.2.x prior to 5.2.4, 5.1.x prior to 5.1.10, 5.0.x prior to 5.0.16 and 4.2.x prior to 4.2.16 use a fixed null initialization vector with CBC Mode in the implementation of the queryable text encryptor. A malicious user with access to the data that has been encrypted using such an encryptor may be able to derive the unencrypted values using a dictionary attack. | |||||
| CVE-2019-11272 | 2 Debian, Vmware | 2 Debian Linux, Spring Security | 2023-12-10 | 7.5 HIGH | 7.3 HIGH |
| 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". | |||||
| CVE-2019-3795 | 2 Debian, Vmware | 2 Debian Linux, Spring Security | 2023-12-10 | 5.0 MEDIUM | 5.3 MEDIUM |
| Spring Security versions 4.2.x prior to 4.2.12, 5.0.x prior to 5.0.12, and 5.1.x prior to 5.1.5 contain an insecure randomness vulnerability when using SecureRandomFactoryBean#setSeed to configure a SecureRandom instance. In order to be impacted, an honest application must provide a seed and make the resulting random material available to an attacker for inspection. | |||||
| CVE-2018-1199 | 3 Oracle, Redhat, Vmware | 5 Rapid Planning, Retail Xstore Point Of Service, Fuse and 2 more | 2023-12-10 | 5.0 MEDIUM | 5.3 MEDIUM |
| Spring Security (Spring Security 4.1.x before 4.1.5, 4.2.x before 4.2.4, and 5.0.x before 5.0.1; and Spring Framework 4.3.x before 4.3.14 and 5.0.x before 5.0.3) does not consider URL path parameters when processing security constraints. By adding a URL path parameter with special encodings, an attacker may be able to bypass a security constraint. The root cause of this issue is a lack of clarity regarding the handling of path parameters in the Servlet Specification. Some Servlet containers include path parameters in the value returned for getPathInfo() and some do not. Spring Security uses the value returned by getPathInfo() as part of the process of mapping requests to security constraints. In this particular attack, different character encodings used in path parameters allows secured Spring MVC static resource URLs to be bypassed. | |||||
| CVE-2014-3527 | 1 Vmware | 1 Spring Security | 2023-12-10 | 7.5 HIGH | 9.8 CRITICAL |
| When using the CAS Proxy ticket authentication from Spring Security 3.1 to 3.2.4 a malicious CAS Service could trick another CAS Service into authenticating a proxy ticket that was not associated. This is due to the fact that the proxy ticket authentication uses the information from the HttpServletRequest which is populated based upon untrusted information within the HTTP request. This means if there are access control restrictions on which CAS services can authenticate to one another, those restrictions can be bypassed. If users are not using CAS Proxy tickets and not basing access control decisions based upon the CAS Service, then there is no impact to users. | |||||
| CVE-2017-4995 | 1 Vmware | 1 Spring Security | 2023-12-10 | 6.8 MEDIUM | 8.1 HIGH |
| An issue was discovered in Pivotal Spring Security 4.2.0.RELEASE through 4.2.2.RELEASE, and Spring Security 5.0.0.M1. When configured to enable default typing, Jackson contained a deserialization vulnerability that could lead to arbitrary code execution. Jackson fixed this vulnerability by blacklisting known "deserialization gadgets." Spring Security configures Jackson with global default typing enabled, which means that (through the previous exploit) arbitrary code could be executed if all of the following is true: (1) Spring Security's Jackson support is being leveraged by invoking SecurityJackson2Modules.getModules(ClassLoader) or SecurityJackson2Modules.enableDefaultTyping(ObjectMapper); (2) Jackson is used to deserialize data that is not trusted (Spring Security does not perform deserialization using Jackson, so this is an explicit choice of the user); and (3) there is an unknown (Jackson is not blacklisting it already) "deserialization gadget" that allows code execution present on the classpath. Jackson provides a blacklisting approach to protecting against this type of attack, but Spring Security should be proactive against blocking unknown "deserialization gadgets" when Spring Security enables default typing. | |||||
| CVE-2014-0097 | 1 Vmware | 1 Spring Security | 2023-12-10 | 7.5 HIGH | 7.3 HIGH |
| The ActiveDirectoryLdapAuthenticator in Spring Security 3.2.0 to 3.2.1 and 3.1.0 to 3.1.5 does not check the password length. If the directory allows anonymous binds then it may incorrectly authenticate a user who supplies an empty password. | |||||
| CVE-2016-5007 | 2 Pivotal Software, Vmware | 3 Spring Framework, Spring Framework, Spring Security | 2023-12-10 | 5.0 MEDIUM | 7.5 HIGH |
| 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. | |||||
| CVE-2016-9879 | 2 Ibm, Vmware | 2 Websphere Application Server, Spring Security | 2023-12-10 | 5.0 MEDIUM | 7.5 HIGH |
| An issue was discovered in Pivotal Spring Security before 3.2.10, 4.1.x before 4.1.4, and 4.2.x before 4.2.1. Spring Security does not consider URL path parameters when processing security constraints. By adding a URL path parameter with an encoded "/" to a request, an attacker may be able to bypass a security constraint. The root cause of this issue is a lack of clarity regarding the handling of path parameters in the Servlet Specification. Some Servlet containers include path parameters in the value returned for getPathInfo() and some do not. Spring Security uses the value returned by getPathInfo() as part of the process of mapping requests to security constraints. The unexpected presence of path parameters can cause a constraint to be bypassed. Users of Apache Tomcat (all current versions) are not affected by this vulnerability since Tomcat follows the guidance previously provided by the Servlet Expert group and strips path parameters from the value returned by getContextPath(), getServletPath(), and getPathInfo(). Users of other Servlet containers based on Apache Tomcat may or may not be affected depending on whether or not the handling of path parameters has been modified. Users of IBM WebSphere Application Server 8.5.x are known to be affected. Users of other containers that implement the Servlet specification may be affected. | |||||
| CVE-2011-2894 | 1 Vmware | 2 Spring Framework, Spring Security | 2023-12-10 | 6.8 MEDIUM | N/A |
| Spring Framework 3.0.0 through 3.0.5, Spring Security 3.0.0 through 3.0.5 and 2.0.0 through 2.0.6, and possibly other versions deserialize objects from untrusted sources, which allows remote attackers to bypass intended security restrictions and execute untrusted code by (1) serializing a java.lang.Proxy instance and using InvocationHandler, or (2) accessing internal AOP interfaces, as demonstrated using deserialization of a DefaultListableBeanFactory instance to execute arbitrary commands via the java.lang.Runtime class. | |||||