LiveActive security incident?Get immediate response
CVE Record

CVE-2018-1199: Spring Security (Spring Security 4.1.x before 4.1.5, 4.2.x before 4.2.4, and 5.0.x before 5.0.1; and Spring...

Spring Security (Spring Security 4.1.x before 4.1.5, 4.2.x before 4.2.4, and 5.0.x before 5.0.1; and Spring Framework 4.3.x before 4.3.14 and 5.0.x before 5.0.3) does not consider URL path parameters when processing security constraints. By adding a URL path parameter with special encodings, an attacker may be able to bypass a security constraint. The root cause of this issue is a lack of clarity regarding the handling of path parameters in the Servlet Specification. Some Servlet containers include path parameters in the value returned for getPathInfo() and some do not. Spring Security uses the value returned by getPathInfo() as part of the process of mapping requests to security constraints. In this particular attack, different character encodings used in path parameters allows secured Spring MVC static resource URLs to be bypassed.

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

Security readout for executives and security teams

Plain-English summary

This vulnerability can let an attacker bypass some Spring Security URL protections by adding specially encoded path parameters to a request. The documented scenario concerns secured Spring MVC static resource URLs. Business impact depends on whether affected Spring versions protect sensitive static content or routes in exposed web applications.

Executive priority

Treat this as a targeted access-control risk. It is not KEV-listed, but exposed Spring applications using affected versions should be remediated in normal security patch cycles, faster if protected static resources contain sensitive data.

Technical view

Spring Security used Servlet getPathInfo() while mapping requests to security constraints. Servlet containers differed on whether path parameters were included, and special encodings in those parameters could cause constraint matching to miss protected Spring MVC static resources. Affected maintained versions include Spring Security before 4.1.5, 4.2.4, and 5.0.1, plus Spring Framework before 4.3.14 and 5.0.3.

Likely exposure

Exposure is most likely in internet-facing Java web applications using the listed Spring Security or Spring Framework versions with Spring MVC static resources protected by URL security constraints. Older unmaintained versions were not analyzed and may also be affected.

Exploitation context

The provided sources do not show active exploitation, and the CVE is not listed as KEV. Exploitation requires a vulnerable Spring configuration and servlet-container behavior where encoded path parameters affect security constraint matching.

Researcher notes

Evidence is strongest for bypass of secured Spring MVC static resource URLs caused by path-parameter and encoding differences in Servlet getPathInfo() handling. The source bundle lacks CVSS, CWE, exploit-status proof, and full configuration prerequisites.

Mitigation direction

  • Upgrade Spring Security to 4.1.5, 4.2.4, 5.0.1, or later supported releases.
  • Upgrade Spring Framework to 4.3.14, 5.0.3, or later supported releases.
  • Check Red Hat, Oracle, or platform vendor advisories for product-specific fixed packages.
  • Prioritize exposed applications that protect static resources or sensitive content through URL rules.
  • Retire or isolate older unmaintained Spring versions until vendor guidance confirms impact.

Validation and detection

  • Inventory deployed applications for affected Spring Security and Spring Framework versions.
  • Review dependency trees, container images, and build manifests for vulnerable Spring artifacts.
  • Confirm whether Spring MVC static resources are protected by URL security constraints.
  • Perform authorized regression testing for encoded path-parameter access to protected resources.
  • Verify the fixed Spring versions are running in production, not only declared in source.
Prepared
Confidence
medium
Sources
5

Public sources used

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-2018-1199 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
7Source 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
Dell EMCSpring by Pivotalspring Security 4.1.0 - 4.1.4, 4.2.0 - 4.2.3, 5.0.0, Spring Framework 5.0.0 - 5.0.2, 4.3.0 - 4.3.13, Older unmaintained versions of Spring Security & Spring Framework were not analyzed and may be impactedListed
Weakness

CWE details

No CWE listed

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