CVSS: 8.8EPSS: 0%CPEs: 81EXPL: 0CVE-2018-1258 – spring-security-core: Unauthorized Access with Spring Security Method Security
https://notcve.org/view.php?id=CVE-2018-1258
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. La versión 5.0.5 de Spring Framework, cuando se utiliza en combinación con cualquier versión de Spring Security, contiene un omisión de autorización cuando se utiliza la seguridad del método. Un usuario malicioso no autorizado puede obtener acceso no autorizado a métodos que deben ser restringidos. • http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/security-advisory/cpujul2018-4258247.html http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/security-advisory/cpuoct2018-4428296.html http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/104222 http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1041888 http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1041896 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:2413 https://pivotal.io/security/cve-2018-1258 https://security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20181018-0002 https://www.oracle.com/security-alerts/cpuapr2020.html https://www.oracle& • CWE-287: Improper Authentication CWE-863: Incorrect Authorization •
CVSS: 7.5EPSS: 0%CPEs: 9EXPL: 0CVE-2018-1199 – spring-framework: Improper URL path validation allows for bypassing of security checks on static resources
https://notcve.org/view.php?id=CVE-2018-1199
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. • https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:2405 https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/4ed49b103f64a0cecb38064f26cbf1389afc12124653da2d35166dbe%40%3Cissues.activemq.apache.org%3E https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ab825fcade0b49becfa30235b3d54f4a51bb74ea96b6c9adb5d1378c%40%3Cissues.activemq.apache.org%3E https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/dcf8599b80e43a6b60482607adb76c64672772dc2d9209ae2170f369%40%3Cissues.activemq.apache.org%3E https://pivotal.io/security/cve-2018-1199 https://www.oracle.com/security-alerts/cpujul2020.html https://access.redhat.com& • CWE-20: Improper Input Validation •
CVSS: 8.1EPSS: 0%CPEs: 4EXPL: 0CVE-2017-4995
https://notcve.org/view.php?id=CVE-2017-4995
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. • http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/99080 https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/4641ed8616ccc2c1fbddac2c3dc9900c96387bc226eaf0232d61909b%40%3Ccommits.cassandra.apache.org%3E https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r42ac3e39e6265db12d9fc6ae1cd4b5fea7aed9830dc6f6d58228fed7%40%3Ccommits.cassandra.apache.org%3E https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rf7f87810c38dc9abf9f93989f76008f504cbf7c1a355214640b2d04c%40%3Ccommits.cassandra.apache.org%3E https://pivotal.io/security/cve-2017-4995 • CWE-502: Deserialization of Untrusted Data •
CVSS: 7.5EPSS: 0%CPEs: 66EXPL: 0CVE-2016-5007
https://notcve.org/view.php?id=CVE-2016-5007
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. Tanto en Spring Security versiones 3.2.x, 4.0.x, 4.1.0 como el Framework Spring versiones 3.2.x, 4.0.x, 4.1.x, 4.2.x, se basan en el mapeo de patrones de URL para la autorización y para mapear las peticiones hacia los controladores, respectivamente. Las diferencias en el rigor de los mecanismos de coincidencia de patrones, por ejemplo con respecto al recorte de espacio en los segmentos de ruta (path), pueden hacer que Spring Security no reconozca ciertas rutas (paths) como no protegidas que de hecho se asignan a los controladores MVC de Spring que deben protegerse. • http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/security-advisory/cpuapr2018-3678067.html http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/91687 https://pivotal.io/security/cve-2016-5007 https://www.oracle.com/technetwork/security-advisory/cpujul2019-5072835.html • CWE-264: Permissions, Privileges, and Access Controls •