Search for packages
| purl | pkg:maven/org.springframework.security/spring-security-core@3.1.7.RELEASE |
| Vulnerability | Summary | Fixed by |
|---|---|---|
|
VCID-cden-3spy-pyhz
Aliases: CVE-2022-22976 GHSA-wx54-3278-m5g4 |
Integer overflow in BCrypt class in Spring Security 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. |
Affected by 2 other vulnerabilities. Affected by 3 other vulnerabilities. |
|
VCID-deuk-emca-3kgr
Aliases: CVE-2016-9879 GHSA-v35c-49j6-q8hq |
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. |
Affected by 5 other vulnerabilities. Affected by 6 other vulnerabilities. Affected by 9 other vulnerabilities. |
|
VCID-dfs4-emmn-f3eb
Aliases: CVE-2016-5007 GHSA-8crv-49fr-2h6j |
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. |
Affected by 0 other vulnerabilities. Affected by 7 other vulnerabilities. |
|
VCID-dwcq-d6nf-1ubn
Aliases: CVE-2024-22257 GHSA-f3jh-qvm4-mg39 |
Erroneous authentication pass in Spring Security In Spring Security, versions 5.7.x prior to 5.7.12, 5.8.x prior to 5.8.11, versions 6.0.x prior to 6.0.9, versions 6.1.x prior to 6.1.8, versions 6.2.x prior to 6.2.3, an application is possible vulnerable to broken access control when it directly uses the AuthenticatedVoter#vote passing a null Authentication parameter. Specifically, an application is vulnerable if: The application uses AuthenticatedVoter directly and a null authentication parameter is passed to it resulting in an erroneous true return value. An application is not vulnerable if any of the following is true: * The application does not use AuthenticatedVoter#vote directly. * The application does not pass null to AuthenticatedVoter#vote. Note that AuthenticatedVoter is deprecated since 5.8, use implementations of AuthorizationManager as a replacement. |
Affected by 1 other vulnerability. Affected by 1 other vulnerability. Affected by 1 other vulnerability. Affected by 1 other vulnerability. |
|
VCID-u6vb-w2bu-ykfk
Aliases: CVE-2024-38827 GHSA-q3v6-hm2v-pw99 |
Spring Framework has Authorization Bypass for Case Sensitive Comparisons The usage of String.toLowerCase() and String.toUpperCase() has some Locale dependent exceptions that could potentially result in authorization rules not working properly. |
Affected by 0 other vulnerabilities. Affected by 0 other vulnerabilities. Affected by 0 other vulnerabilities. Affected by 0 other vulnerabilities. Affected by 0 other vulnerabilities. Affected by 0 other vulnerabilities. |
|
VCID-yeaf-ta2h-p7c1
Aliases: CVE-2021-22112 GHSA-gq28-h5vg-8prx |
Privilege escalation in spring security 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. |
Affected by 0 other vulnerabilities. Affected by 4 other vulnerabilities. Affected by 1 other vulnerability. Affected by 4 other vulnerabilities. Affected by 4 other vulnerabilities. |
| Vulnerability | Summary | Aliases |
|---|---|---|
| VCID-8jtc-ehgu-x3c5 | 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-2014-3527
GHSA-wmv4-5w76-vp9g |