Filtered by vendor Vmware
Subscriptions
Filtered by product Spring Framework
Subscriptions
Total
43 CVE
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v3.1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2022-22968 | 4 Netapp, Oracle, Redhat and 1 more | 9 Active Iq Unified Manager, Cloud Secure Agent, Metrocluster Tiebreaker and 6 more | 2024-11-21 | 5.3 Medium |
| 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. | ||||
| CVE-2022-22950 | 2 Redhat, Vmware | 5 Jboss Enterprise Bpms Platform, Jboss Fuse, Openshift Application Runtimes and 2 more | 2024-11-21 | 6.5 Medium |
| n Spring Framework versions 5.3.0 - 5.3.16 and older unsupported versions, it is possible for a user to provide a specially crafted SpEL expression that may cause a denial of service condition. | ||||
| CVE-2021-22118 | 4 Netapp, Oracle, Redhat and 1 more | 34 Hci, Management Services For Element Software, Commerce Guided Search and 31 more | 2024-11-21 | 7.8 High |
| 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. | ||||
| CVE-2021-22096 | 4 Netapp, Oracle, Redhat and 1 more | 12 Active Iq Unified Manager, Management Services For Element Software And Netapp Hci, Metrocluster Tiebreaker and 9 more | 2024-11-21 | 4.3 Medium |
| In Spring Framework versions 5.3.0 - 5.3.10, 5.2.0 - 5.2.17, and older unsupported versions, it is possible for a user to provide malicious input to cause the insertion of additional log entries. | ||||
| CVE-2021-22060 | 3 Oracle, Redhat, Vmware | 4 Communications Cloud Native Core Console, Communications Cloud Native Core Service Communication Proxy, Jboss Fuse and 1 more | 2024-11-21 | 4.3 Medium |
| In Spring Framework versions 5.3.0 - 5.3.13, 5.2.0 - 5.2.18, and older unsupported versions, it is possible for a user to provide malicious input to cause the insertion of additional log entries. This is a follow-up to CVE-2021-22096 that protects against additional types of input and in more places of the Spring Framework codebase. | ||||
| CVE-2020-5421 | 4 Netapp, Oracle, Redhat and 1 more | 39 Oncommand Insight, Snap Creator Framework, Snapcenter and 36 more | 2024-11-21 | 6.5 Medium |
| 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. | ||||
| CVE-2020-5398 | 4 Netapp, Oracle, Redhat and 1 more | 34 Data Availability Services, Snapcenter, Application Testing Suite and 31 more | 2024-11-21 | 7.5 High |
| In Spring Framework, versions 5.2.x prior to 5.2.3, versions 5.1.x prior to 5.1.13, and versions 5.0.x prior to 5.0.16, an application is vulnerable to a reflected file download (RFD) attack when it sets a "Content-Disposition" header in the response where the filename attribute is derived from user supplied input. | ||||
| CVE-2020-5397 | 2 Oracle, Vmware | 27 Application Testing Suite, Communications Brm - Elastic Charging Engine, Communications Diameter Signaling Router and 24 more | 2024-11-21 | 5.3 Medium |
| Spring Framework, versions 5.2.x prior to 5.2.3 are vulnerable to CSRF attacks through CORS preflight requests that target Spring MVC (spring-webmvc module) or Spring WebFlux (spring-webflux module) endpoints. Only non-authenticated endpoints are vulnerable because preflight requests should not include credentials and therefore requests should fail authentication. However a notable exception to this are Chrome based browsers when using client certificates for authentication since Chrome sends TLS client certificates in CORS preflight requests in violation of spec requirements. No HTTP body can be sent or received as a result of this attack. | ||||
| CVE-2018-1275 | 3 Oracle, Redhat, Vmware | 21 Application Testing Suite, Big Data Discovery, Communications Converged Application Server and 18 more | 2024-11-21 | 9.8 Critical |
| Spring Framework, versions 5.0 prior to 5.0.5 and versions 4.3 prior to 4.3.16 and older unsupported versions, allow applications to expose STOMP over WebSocket endpoints with a simple, in-memory STOMP broker through the spring-messaging module. A malicious user (or attacker) can craft a message to the broker that can lead to a remote code execution attack. This CVE addresses the partial fix for CVE-2018-1270 in the 4.3.x branch of the Spring Framework. | ||||
| CVE-2018-1272 | 3 Oracle, Redhat, Vmware | 27 Application Testing Suite, Big Data Discovery, Communications Converged Application Server and 24 more | 2024-11-21 | 7.5 High |
| Spring Framework, versions 5.0 prior to 5.0.5 and versions 4.3 prior to 4.3.15 and older unsupported versions, provide client-side support for multipart requests. When Spring MVC or Spring WebFlux server application (server A) receives input from a remote client, and then uses that input to make a multipart request to another server (server B), it can be exposed to an attack, where an extra multipart is inserted in the content of the request from server A, causing server B to use the wrong value for a part it expects. This could to lead privilege escalation, for example, if the part content represents a username or user roles. | ||||
| CVE-2018-1271 | 3 Oracle, Redhat, Vmware | 30 Application Testing Suite, Big Data Discovery, Communications Converged Application Server and 27 more | 2024-11-21 | 5.9 Medium |
| Spring Framework, versions 5.0 prior to 5.0.5 and versions 4.3 prior to 4.3.15 and older unsupported versions, allow applications to configure Spring MVC to serve static resources (e.g. CSS, JS, images). When static resources are served from a file system on Windows (as opposed to the classpath, or the ServletContext), a malicious user can send a request using a specially crafted URL that can lead a directory traversal attack. | ||||
| CVE-2018-1270 | 4 Debian, Oracle, Redhat and 1 more | 29 Debian Linux, Application Testing Suite, Big Data Discovery and 26 more | 2024-11-21 | 9.8 Critical |
| Spring Framework, versions 5.0 prior to 5.0.5 and versions 4.3 prior to 4.3.15 and older unsupported versions, allow applications to expose STOMP over WebSocket endpoints with a simple, in-memory STOMP broker through the spring-messaging module. A malicious user (or attacker) can craft a message to the broker that can lead to a remote code execution attack. | ||||
| CVE-2018-1258 | 5 Netapp, Oracle, Pivotal Software and 2 more | 43 Oncommand Insight, Oncommand Unified Manager, Oncommand Workflow Automation and 40 more | 2024-11-21 | 8.8 High |
| Spring Framework version 5.0.5 when used in combination with any versions of Spring Security contains an authorization bypass when using method security. An unauthorized malicious user can gain unauthorized access to methods that should be restricted. | ||||
| CVE-2018-1257 | 3 Oracle, Redhat, Vmware | 32 Agile Product Lifecycle Management, Application Testing Suite, Big Data Discovery and 29 more | 2024-11-21 | 6.5 Medium |
| Spring Framework, versions 5.0.x prior to 5.0.6, versions 4.3.x prior to 4.3.17, and older unsupported versions allows applications to expose STOMP over WebSocket endpoints with a simple, in-memory STOMP broker through the spring-messaging module. A malicious user (or attacker) can craft a message to the broker that can lead to a regular expression, denial of service attack. | ||||
| CVE-2018-1199 | 3 Oracle, Redhat, Vmware | 6 Rapid Planning, Retail Xstore Point Of Service, Fuse and 3 more | 2024-11-21 | 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-2018-15801 | 1 Vmware | 1 Spring Framework | 2024-11-21 | 7.4 High |
| 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. | ||||
| CVE-2018-15756 | 4 Debian, Oracle, Redhat and 1 more | 42 Debian Linux, Agile Plm, Communications Brm - Elastic Charging Engine and 39 more | 2024-11-21 | 7.5 High |
| Spring Framework, version 5.1, versions 5.0.x prior to 5.0.10, versions 4.3.x prior to 4.3.20, and older unsupported versions on the 4.2.x branch provide support for range requests when serving static resources through the ResourceHttpRequestHandler, or starting in 5.0 when an annotated controller returns an org.springframework.core.io.Resource. A malicious user (or attacker) can add a range header with a high number of ranges, or with wide ranges that overlap, or both, for a denial of service attack. This vulnerability affects applications that depend on either spring-webmvc or spring-webflux. Such applications must also have a registration for serving static resources (e.g. JS, CSS, images, and others), or have an annotated controller that returns an org.springframework.core.io.Resource. Spring Boot applications that depend on spring-boot-starter-web or spring-boot-starter-webflux are ready to serve static resources out of the box and are therefore vulnerable. | ||||
| CVE-2018-11040 | 3 Debian, Oracle, Vmware | 28 Debian Linux, Agile Product Lifecycle Management, Application Testing Suite and 25 more | 2024-11-21 | 7.5 High |
| Spring Framework, versions 5.0.x prior to 5.0.7 and 4.3.x prior to 4.3.18 and older unsupported versions, allows web applications to enable cross-domain requests via JSONP (JSON with Padding) through AbstractJsonpResponseBodyAdvice for REST controllers and MappingJackson2JsonView for browser requests. Both are not enabled by default in Spring Framework nor Spring Boot, however, when MappingJackson2JsonView is configured in an application, JSONP support is automatically ready to use through the "jsonp" and "callback" JSONP parameters, enabling cross-domain requests. | ||||
| CVE-2018-11039 | 3 Debian, Oracle, Vmware | 33 Debian Linux, Agile Plm, Application Testing Suite and 30 more | 2024-11-21 | 5.9 Medium |
| Spring Framework (versions 5.0.x prior to 5.0.7, versions 4.3.x prior to 4.3.18, and older unsupported versions) allow web applications to change the HTTP request method to any HTTP method (including TRACE) using the HiddenHttpMethodFilter in Spring MVC. If an application has a pre-existing XSS vulnerability, a malicious user (or attacker) can use this filter to escalate to an XST (Cross Site Tracing) attack. | ||||
| CVE-2016-5007 | 2 Pivotal Software, Vmware | 3 Spring Framework, Spring Framework, Spring Security | 2024-11-21 | 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. | ||||