Spring Framework DataBinder Case Sensitive Match Exception
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 OSS6.1.x 6.1.20 OSS6.0.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.
Noroxi analysis
No Noroxi analysis for this record yet
We don't hand-write analysis for the hundreds of thousands of vulnerabilities in the database; that wouldn't be honest. For notable, high-impact vulnerabilities our team writes the mechanism, detection and remediation steps.
We use this product, ask for help- Published
- May 16, 2025
- Updated
- Jun 17, 2026
- EPSS
- 0.4% · 33th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-20
Sign in to follow · You’ll be notified if a followed record enters KEV, gets an exploit or is updated.
Report tools
Action score
12
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 12 / 40 · 3.1 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 0 / 30 · 0.4%
CISA SSVC decision
- Exploitation
- none
- Automatable
- no
- Technical impact
- partial
Vulnrichment: CISA's decision-tree inputs.
CNA vs NVD score
- NVD
- —
- CNA · vmware
- 3.1
- NVD has not scored this yet; the score shown is the CNA’s.
The score given by the assigning authority versus NVD’s independent score. A gap means the severity is contested.
Affected systems
—
Versions reported by the vendor
Affected version ranges reported by the assigning authority (vmware). Independent of NVD's CPE analysis and usually ahead of it.
Spring Spring Framework
- 6.2.7, 6.1.20, 6.0.28, 5.3.43not affected
- 6.2.0 and later · up to and including 6.2.6affected · Framework
- 6.1.0 and later · up to and including 6.1.19affected · Framework
- 6.0.0 and later · up to and including 6.0.27affected · Enterprise Framework
- 5.3.0 and later · up to and including 5.3.42affected · Enterprise Framework
Package-level exposure
OSV and GitHub Advisory data: ecosystem, package and range. SBOM matching uses this table.
| Ecosystem | Package | Affected range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| Debian:12 | libspring-java | all versions | — |
| Maven | org.springframework:spring-context | from 6.0.0 · up to and including 6.0.23 | — |
| Maven | org.springframework:spring-context | from 6.1.0 · before 6.1.20 | 6.1.20 |
| Maven | org.springframework:spring-context | from 6.2.0 · before 6.2.7 | 6.2.7 |
| Maven | org.springframework:spring-context | up to and including 5.3.39 | — |
Same product
spring: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2024-22243CVE-2024-22243: Spring Framework URL Parsing with Host Validation33Monitor
- CVE-2024-22262CVE-2024-22262: Spring Framework URL Parsing with Host Validation32Monitor
Remediation
Which version to upgrade to
Fix versions compiled from the vendor, package registries and Microsoft. Verify the vendor's note before upgrading.
| Product / package | Fixed version | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Maven:org.springframework:spring-context | 6.1.20 | Package registry (OSV) |
| Maven:org.springframework:spring-context | 6.2.7 | Package registry (OSV) |
Exploit status
No known public exploit
No public exploit has been observed yet. That doesn't mean you're safe, only that the bar is a little higher.
Research context
For pentesters and researchers: attack profile, score disagreement, timeline, patch commits, credits, variant and chain candidates, bug bounty scope. All derived from existing data; no exploit code.
Timeline
From publication to today: proof of concept, Metasploit module, CISA KEV and fix record. Dates are as reported by the sources.
No dated events beyond publication.
FIRST EPSS daily score; only changes of 0.01 or more are recorded (step chart).
Patch and commit links
Commit, PR and diff links among the references. A starting point for patch-diffing and variant hunting; fixes, not exploits.
No commit or PR link among the references.
Credits
All researchersFinders, reporters and analysts named in the CNA record. Click a name for that researcher’s other records.
No credits in the CNA record.
Variant candidates
Same product, same weakness class, within 18 months. If the patch missed the root cause, the sibling bug is here.
No nightly-computed relations.
Chain candidates
An authentication bypass and a privilege-requiring bug in the same product, published close together: combined they may become an unauthenticated path.
—
Bug bounty scope
No known public program.
Source: bounty-targets-data (public HackerOne, Bugcrowd, Intigriti, YesWeHack listings).
Technical details
Attack conditions
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it.
- A low-privileged account is enough.
- No user action is required.
- Special conditions such as timing or configuration are required.
If successful
- Confidentiality
- none
- Integrity
- low · data or configuration can be modified
- Availability
- none
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- High
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality impact
- None
- Integrity impact
- Low
- Availability impact
- None
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-20 · Improper Input ValidationCVSS vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
nvd-secondary
Attack context
MITRE CAPEC attack patterns and ATT&CK techniques for this weakness class (CWE). A starting point for detection rules and threat hunting.
Attack patterns (CAPEC)
- Buffer Overflow via Environment VariablesCAPEC-10likelihood: High · High
- Server Side Include (SSI) InjectionCAPEC-101likelihood: High · High
- Cross Zone ScriptingCAPEC-104likelihood: Medium · High
- Command Line Execution through SQL InjectionCAPEC-108likelihood: Low · Very High
- Object Relational Mapping InjectionCAPEC-109likelihood: Low · High
- SQL Injection through SOAP Parameter TamperingCAPEC-110likelihood: High · Very High
- Double EncodingCAPEC-120likelihood: Low · Medium
- Subverting Environment Variable ValuesCAPEC-13likelihood: High · Very High
ATT&CK techniques
- Obfuscated Files or InformationT1027
- Masquerading: Invalid Code SignatureT1036.001
- Steal Web Session CookieT1539
- Subvert Trust Controls: Code SigningT1553.002
- Impair Defenses:Impair Command History LoggingT1562.003
- Hijack Execution Flow:Dynamic Linker HijackingT1574.006
- Hijack Execution Flow:Path Interception by PATH Environment VariableT1574.007
Change log
- Fix✗ → ✓
For records you follow, these changes also arrive as notifications. →
References
Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.