CVE-2026-59314: Spring Framework response splitting in ContentDisposition
Noroxi assessment
Priority: Monitor (action score 14/100)
- The sources we track (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, Metasploit, Nuclei, GitHub) show no public exploit code or exploitation in the wild.
- Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days: 0.25% (FIRST EPSS).
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it. No account or password is required. No user action is required. Special conditions such as timing or configuration are required.
- According to the record, no fixed version is available yet.
- Mentioned 1 time in Turkish national cyber security advisories (siberguvenlik.gov.tr).
Low priority for now. Update when a fix is released; follow the vendor's advisory.
Generated automatically from the record's data: CVSS (NVD and CNA), CISA KEV and SSVC, FIRST EPSS, exploit sources, fixed versions. How we calculate it
Primary sources: NVD · CVE.org · FIRST EPSS
Applications that build a Content-Disposition header value from untrusted input may be vulnerable to HTTP response splitting when the input is a malicious file name. Spring Framework 7.0.0 - 7.0.8 Spring Framework 6.2.0 - 6.2.19 Spring Framework 6.1.0 - 6.1.28 Spring Framework 6.0.0 - 6.0.30 Spring Framework 5.3.0 - 5.3.49 Spring Framework 5.2.25.RELEASE and earlier
- Published
- Aug 27, 2026
- Updated
- Sep 1, 2026
- EPSS
- 0.2% · 17th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-113
Report tools
Action score
14
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 14 / 40 · 3.7 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 0 / 30 · 0.2%
CISA SSVC decision
- Exploitation
- none
- Automatable
- no
- Technical impact
- partial
Vulnrichment: CISA's decision-tree inputs.
Get told when this record changes
- Not in KEV: no record of exploitation in the wild
- No public exploit code on record
- No fixed version yet
If any of these changes, we'll tell you in the daily email digest.
Running WordPress? Scan your site free with WP Lens
Noroxi analysis
What does it mean in your environment?
The assessment above is generated automatically from the record's data; it doesn't know your environment. Our team verifies on your systems whether this vulnerability is actually exploitable and which mitigation is enough.
We use this product, ask for helpAffected systems
Is your version affected?
Pick the product and type the version you run. It's compared with this record's version ranges in your browser; the version isn't sent anywhere.
| Vendor | Product | CPE |
|---|---|---|
| vmware | spring framework | cpe:2.3:a:vmware:spring_framework |
Affected versions
NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.
- vmware spring frameworkup to 5.2.25 inclusive
- vmware spring framework5.3.0 and later · up to 5.3.49 inclusive
- vmware spring framework6.0.0 and later · up to 6.0.30 inclusive
- vmware spring framework6.1.0 and later · up to 6.1.28 inclusive
- vmware spring framework6.2.0 and later · up to 6.2.19 inclusive
- vmware spring framework7.0.0 and later · up to 7.0.8 inclusive
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
- 7.0.0 and later · up to and including 7.0.8affected
- 6.2.0 and later · up to and including 6.2.19affected
- 6.1.0 and later · up to and including 6.1.28affected
- 6.0.0 and later · up to and including 6.0.30affected
- 5.3.0 and later · up to and including 5.3.49affected
- up to and including 5.2.25.RELEASEaffected
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 | from 0 | — |
Same product
vmware: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2022-22965A Spring MVC or Spring WebFlux application running on JDK 9+ may be vulnerable to remote code execution (RCE) via data binding.KEV99Now
- CVE-2018-1270Spring 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 62This week
- CVE-2020-5398RFD Attack via "Content-Disposition" Header Sourced from Request Input by Spring MVC or Spring WebFlux Application56Plan
Published before and after this one in the same product
- ← EarlierCVE-2026-59282Aug 27, 2026 · Spring Framework Denial of Service via Unbounded List Growth in Data Binding30Monitor
- ← EarlierCVE-2026-59283Aug 27, 2026 · Spring Framework Safety Guard Bypass via SpEL Expression Compilation36Monitor
- ← EarlierCVE-2026-59313Aug 27, 2026 · Server Sent Event stream corruption in Spring MVC functional web framework39Monitor
Remediation
Which version to upgrade to
Fix versions compiled from the vendor, package registries and Microsoft. Verify the vendor's note before upgrading.
No fix version is recorded for this entry. Check the references for vendor advisories.
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.
- CVE-2025-41234441 days apartRFD Attack via “Content-Disposition” Header Sourced from Request26Monitor
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).
National notice (Türkiye Cybersecurity Directorate / USOM)
Official security notices citing this record; remediation advice is on the agency's page.
- TR-26-0933 · Aug 28, 2026(Spring Çoklu Ürün Güvenlik Bildirimi)
Technical details
Attack conditions
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it.
- No account or password is required.
- 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
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality impact
- None
- Integrity impact
- Low
- Availability impact
- None
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-113 · Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences in HTTP Headers ('HTTP Request/Response Splitting')CVSS vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
nvd-primary
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)
ATT&CK techniques
Change log
No changes recorded on tracked fields yet. Score, KEV, exploit maturity and fix status changes appear here.
References
Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.