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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

When processing user provided XML documents, the Spring Framework 4.0.0 to 4.0.4, 3.0.0 to 3.2.8, and possibly earlier unsupported versions did not disable by default the resolution of URI references in a DTD declaration. This enabled an XXE attack.

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.