GHSA-4WP7-92PW-Q264

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-05-16 21:32 – Updated: 2025-06-02 16:03
VLAI?
Summary
Spring Framework DataBinder Case Sensitive Match Exception
Details

CVE-2024-38820 ensured Locale-independent, lowercase conversion for both the configured disallowedFields patterns and for request parameter names. However, there are still cases where it is possible to bypass the disallowedFields checks.

Affected Spring Products and Versions

Spring Framework: * 6.2.0 - 6.2.6

  • 6.1.0 - 6.1.19

  • 6.0.0 - 6.0.27

  • 5.3.0 - 5.3.42

  • Older, unsupported versions are also affected

Mitigation

Users of affected versions should upgrade to the corresponding fixed version.

Affected version(s) Fix Version  Availability
 6.2.x 6.2.7 OSS
6.1.x 6.1.20 OSS
6.0.x 6.0.28 Commercial https://enterprise.spring.io/
5.3.x 5.3.43 Commercial https://enterprise.spring.io/

No further mitigation steps are necessary.

Generally, we recommend using a dedicated model object with properties only for data binding, or using constructor binding since constructor arguments explicitly declare what to bind together with turning off setter binding through the declarativeBinding flag. See the Model Design section in the reference documentation.

For setting binding, prefer the use of allowedFields (an explicit list) over disallowedFields.

Credit

This issue was responsibly reported by the TERASOLUNA Framework Development Team from NTT DATA Group Corporation.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "database_specific": {
        "last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 6.2.6"
      },
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "Maven",
        "name": "org.springframework:spring-context"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "6.2.0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "6.2.7"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "database_specific": {
        "last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 6.1.19"
      },
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "Maven",
        "name": "org.springframework:spring-context"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "6.1.0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "6.1.20"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "Maven",
        "name": "org.springframework:spring-context"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "6.0.0"
            },
            {
              "last_affected": "6.0.23"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "Maven",
        "name": "org.springframework:spring-context"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "last_affected": "5.3.39"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2025-22233"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-20"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2025-06-02T16:03:00Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2025-05-16T20:15:22Z",
    "severity": "LOW"
  },
  "details": "CVE-2024-38820 ensured Locale-independent, lowercase conversion for both the configured disallowedFields patterns and for request parameter names. However, there are still cases where it is possible to bypass the disallowedFields checks.\n\nAffected Spring Products and Versions\n\nSpring Framework:\n  *  6.2.0 - 6.2.6\n\n  *  6.1.0 - 6.1.19\n\n  *  6.0.0 - 6.0.27\n\n  *  5.3.0 - 5.3.42\n  *  Older, unsupported versions are also affected\n\n\n\nMitigation\n\nUsers of affected versions should upgrade to the corresponding fixed version.\n\n| Affected version(s) | Fix Version\u00a0| Availability |\n| - | - | - |\n|\u00a06.2.x |  6.2.7 | OSS |\n| 6.1.x |  6.1.20 | OSS |\n| 6.0.x |  6.0.28 |  Commercial https://enterprise.spring.io/ |\n| 5.3.x |  5.3.43 | Commercial https://enterprise.spring.io/  |\n\nNo further mitigation steps are necessary.\n\n\nGenerally, we recommend using a dedicated model object with properties only for data binding, or using constructor binding since constructor arguments explicitly declare what to bind together with turning off setter binding through the declarativeBinding flag. See the Model Design section in the reference documentation.\n\nFor setting binding, prefer the use of allowedFields (an explicit list) over disallowedFields.\n\nCredit\n\nThis issue was responsibly reported by the TERASOLUNA Framework Development Team from NTT DATA Group Corporation.",
  "id": "GHSA-4wp7-92pw-q264",
  "modified": "2025-06-02T16:03:00Z",
  "published": "2025-05-16T21:32:12Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-22233"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-framework/issues/34801"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-framework/commit/edfcc6ffb188e4614ec9b212e3208b666981851c"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-framework/commit/ee62701f5634e904e42e218baad142cea2bcd332"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-framework"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://spring.io/security/cve-2025-22233"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "Spring Framework DataBinder Case Sensitive Match Exception"
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.


Loading…

Loading…

Loading…

Sightings

Author Source Type Date

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.


Loading…

Detection rules are retrieved from Rulezet.

Loading…

Loading…