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: 9.8EPSS: 0%CPEs: 10EXPL: 0CVE-2014-3527
https://notcve.org/view.php?id=CVE-2014-3527
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. Cuando se utiliza la autenticación de tickets de Proxy CAS de Spring Security, versiones de la 3.1 a la 3.2.4, un servicio CAS malicioso permitiría engañar a otro servicio CAS para autenticar un ticket proxy que no estaba asociado. • https://pivotal.io/security/cve-2014-3527 • CWE-287: Improper Authentication •
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: 28EXPL: 0CVE-2016-9879 – Security: Improper handling of path parameters allows bypassing the security constraint
https://notcve.org/view.php?id=CVE-2016-9879
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. • http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/95142 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2017:1832 https://pivotal.io/security/cve-2016-9879 https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2016-9879 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409838 • CWE-20: Improper Input Validation CWE-417: Communication Channel Errors •
CVSS: 7.5EPSS: 0%CPEs: 8EXPL: 0CVE-2014-0097
https://notcve.org/view.php?id=CVE-2014-0097
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. El ActiveDirectoryLdapAuthenticator en Spring Security versiones de la 3.2.0 a la 3.2.1 y de la 3.1.0 a la 3.1.5 no chequea la longitud de la contraseña. Si el directorio permite enlaces anónimos entonces podría autenticar de forma incorrecta a un usuario que proporcionase una contraseña vacía. • https://pivotal.io/security/cve-2014-0097 https://www.oracle.com/security-alerts/cpuapr2022.html • CWE-287: Improper Authentication •