LiveActive security incident?Get immediate response
CVE Record

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 pa...

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.

UnknownCVSS not scoredNot KEV-listedUpdated
Discuss exposureBack to CVEs
Glexia's TakeAutomated analysis

Security readout for executives and security teams

Legacy Spring applications may have protected web pages or API endpoints that are reachable because Spring Security and Spring MVC interpret URL patterns differently. The issue is business-relevant when sensitive controllers rely on URL-based authorization, especially in public-facing applications. Exposure is most likely in applications using affected Spring Security and Spring Framework versions with URL-pattern-based authorization, especially customized mappings or older unsupported Spring releases. Treat this as a targeted legacy web-application risk. Prioritize externally reachable Spring apps handling sensitive workflows, but do not classify as emergency without affected versions or exposed protected routes. Mitigation focus: Identify affected Spring Security and Spring Framework versions in deployed applications.; Review the Pivotal/Spring advisory for supported fixed releases and upgrade guidance.; Audit custom URL pattern matchers and MVC controller mappings for authorization mismatches..

Prepared

Generated from the cited source records. This long-tail analysis has not been individually reviewed by a named human.

Potential ATT&CK relevance

Conservative CVE-to-ATT&CK context

These mappings and lookup hints may be relevant to the vulnerability behavior, CWE, affected product, or exposure path. Glexia-inferred context is not an official MITRE, ATT&CK, CWE, or CVE Program mapping.

ATT&CK lookup starting points

Use these exact CWE pages and searches to review the Glexia ATT&CK library from this CVE's weakness and description context.

cve · low confidence lookup

CVE-2016-5007 mapping review

Open the CVE-to-ATT&CK bridge for reviewed, inferred, or future official mappings tied to this CVE.

Open ATT&CK lookup
Vulnerability profileCVE Program record
Severity
Unknown
CVSS
Not scored
Known Exploited
No
Published
Official CVE source material

CNA and ADP enrichment extracted from CVE v5

These fields come from the CVE record and ADP containers, not from Glexia's Take. They preserve time-varying source decisions such as CISA SSVC, KEV status, CVSS metrics, and provider references.

0CVSS vectors
0Timeline events
0ADP providers
3Source links

CVSS and timeline data

No CVSS vectors or timeline events were available in the normalized CVE source material.

Source materials

Affected products

Products and packages named in the record

VendorProductVersion / packageStatus
PivotalSpring Security3.2.x, 4.0.x, 4.1.0Listed
PivotalSpring Framework3.2.x, 4.0.x, 4.1.x, 4.2.x, older unsupported versions are also affectedListed
Weakness

CWE details

No CWE listed

CWE links open Glexia weakness intelligence pages with official CWE context, developer remediation guidance, and related CVE mappings.