CVSS: 9.8EPSS: 76%CPEs: 70EXPL: 4CVE-2018-1270 – spring-framework: Possible RCE via spring messaging
https://notcve.org/view.php?id=CVE-2018-1270
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, en versiones 5.0 anteriores a la 5.0.5 y versiones 4.3 anteriores a la 4.3.15, así como versiones más antiguas no soportadas, permite que las aplicaciones expongan STOMP en endpoints WebSocket con un simple agente STOMP en memoria a través del módulo spring-messaging. Un usuario (o atacante) malicioso puede manipular un mensaje al agente que desemboca en un ataque de ejecución remota de código. Pivotal Spring Java Framework versions 5.0.x and below suffer from a remote code execution vulnerability. • https://github.com/CaledoniaProject/CVE-2018-1270 https://github.com/Venscor/CVE-2018-1270 https://github.com/tafamace/CVE-2018-1270 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/103696 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:2939 https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/4ed49b103f64a0cecb38064f26cbf1389afc12124653da2d35166dbe%40%3Cissues.activemq.apache.org%3E https://lists& • CWE-20: Improper Input Validation CWE-94: Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection') CWE-358: Improperly Implemented Security Check for Standard •
CVSS: 9.6EPSS: 0%CPEs: 36EXPL: 1CVE-2015-5211
https://notcve.org/view.php?id=CVE-2015-5211
Under some situations, the Spring Framework 4.2.0 to 4.2.1, 4.0.0 to 4.1.7, 3.2.0 to 3.2.14 and older unsupported versions is vulnerable to a Reflected File Download (RFD) attack. The attack involves a malicious user crafting a URL with a batch script extension that results in the response being downloaded rather than rendered and also includes some input reflected in the response. En algunas situaciones, el Framework Spring versiones 4.2.0 hasta 4.2.1, versiones 4.0.0 hasta 4.1.7, versiones 3.2.0 hasta 3.2.14 y versiones anteriores no compatibles, son vulnerables a un ataque de tipo Reflected File Download (RFD). El ataque involucra a un usuario malicioso que diseña una URL con una extensión de script por lotes lo que resulta en la respuesta siendo descargada en lugar de renderizada y también incluye alguna entrada reflejada en la respuesta. • https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2019/07/msg00012.html https://pivotal.io/security/cve-2015-5211 https://www.trustwave.com/Resources/SpiderLabs-Blog/Reflected-File-Download---A-New-Web-Attack-Vector • CWE-552: Files or Directories Accessible to External Parties •
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 •
CVSS: 7.5EPSS: 0%CPEs: 32EXPL: 0CVE-2016-9878 – Framework: Directory Traversal in the Spring Framework ResourceServlet
https://notcve.org/view.php?id=CVE-2016-9878
An issue was discovered in Pivotal Spring Framework before 3.2.18, 4.2.x before 4.2.9, and 4.3.x before 4.3.5. Paths provided to the ResourceServlet were not properly sanitized and as a result exposed to directory traversal attacks. Un problema fue descubierto en Pivotal Spring Framework en versiones anteriores a 3.2.18, 4.2.x en versiones anteriores a 4.2.9 y 4.3.x en versiones anteriores a 4.3.5. Las rutas proporcionadas al ResourceServlet no fueron desinfectadas adecuadamente y como resultado expuestas a ataques de salto de directorio. It was found that ResourceServlet in Spring Framework does not sanitize the paths that have been provided properly. • http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/security-advisory/cpuapr2018-3678067.html http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/security-advisory/cpujan2018-3236628.html http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/security-advisory/cpujul2018-4258247.html http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/95072 http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1040698 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2017:3115 https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2019/07/msg00012.html https://pivotal.io/security/cve-2016-9878 https://security.netapp.com/adviso • CWE-22: Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal') •
CVSS: 5.5EPSS: 3%CPEs: 23EXPL: 0CVE-2015-3192 – Framework: denial-of-service attack with XML input
https://notcve.org/view.php?id=CVE-2015-3192
Pivotal Spring Framework before 3.2.14 and 4.x before 4.1.7 do not properly process inline DTD declarations when DTD is not entirely disabled, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (memory consumption and out-of-memory errors) via a crafted XML file. Pivotal Spring Framework en versiones anteriores a 3.2.14 y 4.x en versiones anteriores a 4.1.7 no procesa correctamente las declaraciones DTD en línea cuando DTD no está completamente desactivado, lo que permite a atacantes remotos provocar una caída de servicio (consumo de memoria y errores fuera de rango) a través de un archivo XML manipulado. A denial of service flaw was found in the way Spring processes inline DTD declarations. A remote attacker could submit a specially crafted XML file that would cause out-of-memory errors when parsed. • http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/package-announce/2015-July/162015.html http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/package-announce/2015-July/162017.html http://pivotal.io/security/cve-2015-3192 http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2016-1592.html http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2016-1593.html http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2016-2035.html http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2016-2036.html http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/90853 http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1036587 ht • CWE-20: Improper Input Validation CWE-119: Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer •