Search
Total
8 CVE
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v2 | CVSS v3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2022-31690 | 2 Netapp, Vmware | 2 Active Iq Unified Manager, Spring Security | 2023-08-08 | 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-2021-22119 | 2 Oracle, Vmware | 2 Communications Cloud Native Core Policy, Spring Security | 2022-07-25 | 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 | 2021-12-08 | 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-2017-4995 | 1 Vmware | 1 Spring Security | 2021-09-27 | 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-2016-5007 | 2 Pivotal Software, Vmware | 2 Spring Framework, Spring Security | 2021-06-08 | 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-2014-0097 | 1 Vmware | 1 Spring Security | 2021-06-08 | 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-2016-9879 | 2 Ibm, Vmware | 2 Websphere Application Server, Spring Security | 2021-06-08 | 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-2019-11272 | 2 Debian, Vmware | 2 Debian Linux, Spring Security | 2021-06-08 | 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". | |||||