ghsa-4wp7-92pw-q264
Vulnerability from github
Published
2025-05-16 21:32
Modified
2025-06-02 16:03
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...
  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or seen somewhere by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability is confirmed from an analyst perspective.
  • Exploited: This vulnerability was exploited and seen by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Patched: This vulnerability was successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Not exploited: This vulnerability was not exploited or seen by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expresses doubt about the veracity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: This vulnerability was not successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.