CVE-2016-5007
HighSummary
The vulnerability in Spring Security and Spring Framework involves incorrect recognition of URL paths, which may lead to certain resources not being protected. Differences in pattern matching mechanisms can result in unprotected paths that should be secured.
Risk Assessment
Organizations may be exposed to unauthorized access to resources that should be protected, potentially leading to data leaks or other serious security incidents.
Recommendation
It is recommended to update to the latest version of Spring Security and Spring Framework to ensure correct URL pattern matching and resource protection.
Related vulnerabilities
- CVE-2026-82843Critical
The WP OAuth Server (Login with WordPress) WordPress plugin before 6.4.0 does not bind the OpenID Connect identity assertion it issues to the authorization grant being exchanged, returning instead the assertion belonging to whichever user authenticated most recently. This allows users with the Subscriber role and above to obtain a validly signed identity assertion for another user, including an administrator, and authenticate as them at any application that uses the site for single sign-on.
- CVE-2026-75799Critical
The YAHMAN Add-ons WordPress plugin before 0.9.31 does not validate the type of the remote files it caches in a publicly accessible directory, allowing unauthenticated attackers to write arbitrary PHP files on the server and achieve RCE when the relevant feature is enabled.
- CVE-2026-96257Critical
A flaw has been found in Fast FAC1203R Gigabit Edition 2.0.4 in the copy_msg_element function of the Device Discovery Service component. Input manipulation can lead to a stack-based buffer overflow, and the attack can be executed remotely. The exploit has been published and may be used; the vendor did not respond to the disclosure.
- CVE-2026-18169Critical
IBM Financial Transaction Manager (FTM) for RedHat OpenShift could allow a remote authenticated attacker to obtain sensitive information due to improper validation of symbolic links.
- CVE-2026-18163Critical
IBM Financial Transaction Manager (FTM) for RedHat OpenShift could allow a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code due to improper deserialization of untrusted data.
- CVE-2026-18162Critical
IBM Financial Transaction Manager (FTM) for RedHat OpenShift could allow a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code due to improper neutralization of user-controlled input within the new Function constructor.
- CVE-2026-19202Critical
A caching flaw in the toolbox-core package of the mcp-toolbox-sdk-python SDK causes the same Google ID token to be cached and reused across different audiences. If an application uses the SDK to authenticate to two or more different audiences within the same process, the module-level token cache fails to key its cached tokens by the requested audience. Consequently, a valid, unexpired token minted for a sensitive service (Service A) can be retrieved from the cache and sent to a secondary service (Service B). An attacker who operates, compromises, or monitors traffic to Service B can capture this token and replay it to impersonate the victim application against Service A.
- CVE-2026-17645Critical
IBM Financial Transaction Manager (FTM) for RedHat OpenShift could allow a remote authenticated attacker to gain elevated privileges due to improper privilege management.
- CVE-2026-17635Critical
IBM Financial Transaction Manager (FTM) for RedHat OpenShift could allow a remote attacker to perform unauthorized actions due to improper configuration of HTTP method-based security constraints.
- CVE-2026-17472Critical
IBM Concert 1.0.0 through 3.0.0 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to access or modify unauthorized resources due to the use of wildcards in RBAC permission definitions.
Original NVD description (English source)
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.