BlackTreeCVE Intelligence
← Back to the CVE catalogue
Full vulnerability report · 2018
CVE-2018-1272High confidence

Spring by Pivotal Spring Framework: security vulnerability

Spring by Pivotal · Spring Framework

7.5HighCVSS 3.1
Recommended action
Within 7 days

High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.

Patch available
R
Operational reassessment

Published severity in operational context

Open reassessment dashboard →
Published severityHighOperational priority:High, unchanged from published severity.unchanged

Evidence used

  • No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
  • EPSS is 3.06% for the current model date.

Compensating controls

  • Validate the affected product branch and deploy the verified fixed release.
  • Restrict the affected network interface to trusted sources where business-safe.
  • Monitor vendor guidance and exploitation sources for a material change.

Verification

  1. Confirm that the asset runs Spring by Pivotal Spring Framework and falls inside the recorded affected range.
  2. Verify the installed build against the product-specific fixed version after deployment.
  3. Validate exposure, authentication requirements and compensating controls in the actual environment.
  4. Reopen this reassessment when CVSS, KEV, EPSS, exploit evidence or remediation changes.
Mitigation target: Within 30 daysRemediation target: Within 180 days

This automated reassessment organises public evidence. It does not know asset exposure, business impact or control effectiveness and does not replace CVSS or a human risk decision.

Distribution package intelligence

Release-specific package status

Debian findings are scoped to the named distribution, release and source package. An absent finding does not mean a package is unaffected.

4 package states
Repository candidate not checked

A published vendor fix does not prove that a matching update is enabled and installable on a particular asset. Confirm the local package candidate before scheduling remediation.

Distribution releaseSource packageVendor stateFixed versionEvidence
Debian trixietrixie · sourcelibspring-javaVendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release.4.3.19-1Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026
Debian bookwormbookworm · sourcelibspring-javaVendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release.4.3.19-1Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026
Debian forkyforky · sourcelibspring-javaVendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release.4.3.19-1Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026
Debian sidsid · sourcelibspring-javaVendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release.4.3.19-1Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026
Optional official sources

National CERT insights
?CERT means Computer Emergency Response Team; CSIRT is the closely related term Computer Security Incident Response Team.

Choose official national sources for this report. Each advisory shows its original language. Your selection is remembered on this device and included in shared links.

Official European source

ENISA European Vulnerability Database

Official EUVD identifiers, advisory evidence and known-exploited context. Missing fields are not treated as evidence of low risk.

1 current
ENISA EUVD identifier

EUVD-2018-0493

No EUVD known-exploited evidence

ENISA has published the identifier mapping but no EUVD description has been stored yet.

EUVD state
Present in the current official mapping
Known exploitation
Not present in the current ENISA EUVD known-exploited dataset. This is not proof of no exploitation.
ENISA score
Not supplied in the stored EUVD record
Advisory evidence
No linked advisory details stored yet
Recommended actionWithin 7 days

High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.

Patch available
01

What, why and how

Spring Framework, versions 5.0 prior to 5.0.5 and versions 4.3 prior to 4.3.15 and older unsupported versions, provide client-side support for multipart requests. When Spring MVC or Spring WebFlux server application (server A) receives input from a remote client, and then uses that input to make a multipart request to another server (server B), it can be exposed to an attack, where an extra multipart is inserted in the content of the request from server A, causing server B to use the wrong value for a part it expects. This could to lead privilege escalation, for example, if the part content represents a username or user roles.

What

Spring Framework, versions 5.0 prior to 5.0.5 and versions 4.3 prior to 4.3.15 and older unsupported versions, provide client-side support for multipart requests. When Spring MVC or Spring WebFlux server application (server A) receives input from a remote client, and then uses that input to make a multipart request to another server (server B), it can be exposed to an attack, where an extra multipart is inserted in the content of the request from server A, causing server B to use the wrong value for a part it expects. This could to lead privilege escalation, for example, if the part content represents a username or user roles.

Why

The current structured CVE record identifies a security weakness, but the root cause requires confirmation in the linked vendor material.

How

An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may gain additional privileges.

What

Spring Framework, versions 5.0 prior to 5.0.5 and versions 4.3 prior to 4.3.15 and older unsupported versions, provide client-side support for multipart requests. When Spring MVC or Spring WebFlux server application (server A) receives input from a remote client, and then uses that input to make a multipart request to another server (server B), it can be exposed to an attack, where an extra multipart is inserted in the content of the request from server A, causing server B to use the wrong value for a part it expects. This could to lead privilege escalation, for example, if the part content represents a username or user roles.

Why

The current structured CVE record identifies a security weakness, but the root cause requires confirmation in the linked vendor material.

How

An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may gain additional privileges.

02

Exploit reality and attack path

CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.

Observed exploitation
?Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.
No confirmed evidence

No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.

Public PoC / exploit material
?Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.
None recorded

No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.

Likely attack path
a network path → vulnerable operation → gain additional privileges
Attack surface
Network
Privileges required
Low: a basic authenticated account is required
User interaction
None
Attack complexity
High: exploitation depends on specific conditions
Security boundary
Unchanged: impact remains within the vulnerable component's security authority
Weakness
?CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration.
CWE not yet assigned
CVSS vector
?CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

Common Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.

AVNetworkAttack vector: The vulnerable component can be reached over a network.ACHighAttack complexity: Successful exploitation depends on specific conditions outside the attacker's direct control.PRLowPrivileges required: The attacker needs basic user-level privileges.UINoneUser interaction: No action by another user is required.SUnchangedScope: The security impact remains within the vulnerable component's authority.CHighConfidentiality impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.IHighIntegrity impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.AHighAvailability impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.
Post-exploitation / living off the land
No specific living-off-the-land technique is confirmed in the structured sources. Monitor normal administration tools for activity inconsistent with the affected service's baseline.
NetworkPrivilege escalation
A

Official authority intelligence

Only matched European and national findings are included. Language selectors and unavailable sources are omitted.

BSI · German · WID-SEC-2024-0528Dell Data Protection Advisor: Mehrere Schwachstellen

Ein Angreifer kann mehrere Schwachstellen in Dell Data Protection Advisor ausnutzen, um beliebigen Code auszuführen, einen Denial-of-Service-Zustand herbeizuführen, Dateien zu manipulieren, vertrauliche Informationen offenzulegen, seine Berechtigungen zu erweitern oder einen nicht spezifizierten Angriff durchzuführen.

Official advisory ↗
Canadian Centre for Cyber Security · English · AV18-118Oracle Critical Patch update Advisory

oft Enterprise FIN Install, version 9.2 - PeopleSoft Enterprise HCM Human Resources, version 9.2 - PeopleSoft Enterprise PeopleTools, versions 8.55, 8.56 - PeopleSoft HRMS, version 9.2 - Primavera P6 Enterprise Project Portfolio Management, versions 8.4, 15.x, 16.x, 17.x - Primavera Unifier, versions 16.x, 17.x, 18.x - Siebel Applications, version 18.0 - Solaris, versions 10, 11.2, 11.3 - Solaris Cluster, versions 3.3, 4.3 - Sun ZFS Storage Appliance Kit (AK), versions prior to 8.7.20 - Tape Library ACSLS, versions Prior to ACSLS 8.4.0-3 CVE References: CVE-2018-0733, CVE-2018-0739, CVE-2018-1171, CVE-2018-1258, CVE-2018-1270, CVE-2018-1271, CVE-2018-1272, CVE-2018-1275, CVE-2018-1304, CVE-2018-1305, CVE-2018-1327, CVE-2018-2598, CVE-2018-2767, CVE-2018-2881, CVE-2018-2882, CVE-2018-2888, CVE-2018-2891, CVE-2018-2892, CVE-2018-2893, CVE-2018-2894, CVE-2018-2895, CVE-2018-2896, CVE-2018-2897, CVE-2018-2898, CVE-2018-2899, CVE-2018-2900, CVE-2018-2901, CVE-2018-2903, CVE-2018-2904, CVE-2018-2905, CVE-2018-2906, CVE-2018-2907, CVE-2018-2908, CVE-2018-2915, CVE-2018-2916, CVE-2018-2917, CVE-2018-2918, CVE-2018-2919, CVE-2018-2920, CVE-2018-2921, CVE-2018-2923, CVE-2018-2924, CVE-2018-2925, CVE-2018-2926, CVE-2018-2927, CVE-2018-2928, CVE-2018-2929, CVE-2018-2930, CVE-2018-2932, CVE-2018-2933, CVE

Official advisory ↗
JVN iPedia · Japanese · JVNDB-2018-003099Spring Framework における脆弱性

Spring Framework には、不特定の脆弱性が存在します。

Official advisory ↗
KISA KrCERT/CC · Korean · KNVD-4882Pivotal Spring framework 보안 취약점 업데이트 권고

#### Pivotal Spring framework 보안 취약점 업데이트 권고 2018.04.09 영향 받는 버전 및 업데이트 버전 수정 : 2018-04-16 ##### □ 개요 o Pivotal社의 Spring framework의 취약점을 해결한 보안 업데이트 권고 ##### □ 주요 내용 o 조작된 메시지를 broker에게 전송하여 발생하는 원격 코드 실행 취약점(CVE-2018-1270)[1] o 조작된 URL을 요청하여 발생하는 디렉토리 탐색 취약점(CVE-2018-1271)[2] o 원격사용자가 요청한 입력값을 변조하여 발생하는 권한상승 취약점(CVE-2018-1272)[3] ##### □ 영향을 받는 제품 및 버전 o Spring Framework - 5.0 ~ 5.0.4 버전 - 4.3 ~ 4.3.15 버전 - 기타 지원되지 않는 이전 버전(older unsupported versions) ##### □ 해결 방안 o Spring 공식 홈페이지에서 최신버전으로 업데이트[2] - 5.0.5 버전 - 4.3.16 버전 ##### □ 용어 정리 o STOMP : 텍스트에 기반한 메시징 프로토콜 o Message broker : 송신자가 메시지 프로토콜을 사용하여 수신자에게 보낸 메시지를 번역하는 프로그램 모듈 ##### □ 기타 문의사항 o 한국인터넷진흥원 인터넷침해대응센터: 국번없이 118 [참고사이트] [1] https://pivotal.io/security/cve-2018-1270 [2] https://pivotal.io/security/cve-2018-1271 [3] https://pivotal.io/security/cve-2018-1272 [4] https://projects.spring.io/spring-framework/

Official advisory ↗
03

Patch and workaround

Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.

Status
?Patch availability is based on structured fixed-version fields and authoritative update references. If no fix is verified, check the vendor advisory before making a change.
Patch available
Affected
Spring Framework: Versions prior to 5.0.5 and 4.3.15
Fixed
An authoritative update reference is available, but the fixed version is not recorded in the structured CVE fields. Check the linked vendor advisory for the applicable release.
Action
Review the linked authoritative reference and apply the recorded fixed release appropriate to the affected product branch.
Workaround
No verified workaround is recorded. If business-safe, reduce exposure to the affected interface and allow only trusted sources until authoritative guidance is available.
04

Evidence and provenance

Published 6 Apr 2018 · Last source change 17 Sept 2024, 02:15 UTC · CWE not yet assigned

CVE recordCVE.org · 5.1
CVSS sourceNIST NVD
EPSS source
?The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.
FIRST · tracked since 2026-09-01
European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2018-0493
Product sourceCNA
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceUnavailable
NVD statusNVD modified after enrichment

Missing structured fields: CWE classification. Missing data is not evidence of low risk; review the primary advisory.

Material change intelligence

What changed after publication

View recent updates ↗
  1. ENISA EUVD mappingEUVD-2018-0493 was added to the official ENISA EUVD mapping for this CVE.
    Before
    not recorded
    After
    {"euvdId":"EUVD-2018-0493"}
    ENISA EUVD ↗
  2. Vendor guidanceAuthoritative vendor guidance changed: added patch: oracle.com/cpujan2019-5072801.html; added patch: oracle.com/cpujul2018-4258247.html; removed vendor advisory: access.redhat.com/RHSA-2018:1320; removed vendor advisory: access.redhat.com/RHSA-2018:2669; 6 further additions.
    Before
    vendor advisory: access.redhat.com/RHSA-2018:1320 · vendor advisory: access.redhat.com/RHSA-2018:2669
    After
    patch: oracle.com/cpujan2019-5072801.html · patch: oracle.com/cpujul2018-4258247.html · patch: oracle.com/cpujul2019-5072835.html · 5 more references
    oracle.com ↗
  3. Affected versionsThe structured affected or fixed version information changed.
    Before
    Versions prior to 5.0.5 and 4.3.15 · Fixed: No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
    After
    Versions prior to 5.0.5 and 4.3.15 · Fixed: An authoritative update reference is available, but the fixed version is not recorded in the structured CVE fields. Check the linked vendor advisory for the applicable release.
    CNA ↗
  4. Remediation statusRemediation status changed from Awaiting fix to Patch available.
    Before
    Awaiting fix
    After
    Patch available
    oracle.com ↗
  5. SeveritySeverity changed from Unknown to High.
    Before
    Unknown
    After
    High
    NIST NVD ↗
  6. CVSS scoreCVSS score changed from not recorded to 7.5 (CVSS 3.1 · NIST NVD · CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H).
    Before
    not recorded
    After
    7.5 (CVSS 3.1 · NIST NVD · CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H)
    NIST NVD ↗
  7. Catalogue recordCVE added to the BlackTree catalogue.
    CNA ↗
Material fields only · duplicate refreshes suppressed · history retained for the configured operational retention period
Technical terms and abbreviations used in this report
CVE
Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures: the public identifier for one disclosed vulnerability.
CVSS
Common Vulnerability Scoring System: a technical severity framework; it is not patching priority by itself.
EPSS
Exploit Prediction Scoring System: FIRST's estimate of the probability that exploitation activity will be observed in the next 30 days; it is a forecast, not confirmation.
CWE
Common Weakness Enumeration: the standard category describing the underlying software or hardware weakness.
CNA
CVE Numbering Authority: an organisation authorised to assign and publish CVE records.
CISA ADP
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Authorized Data Publisher: structured enrichment added to a CVE record.
NVD
National Vulnerability Database: NIST's enrichment service for CVE records.
CERT / CSIRT
A computer security incident response team that publishes warnings or coordinates incident response.
PoC
Proof of concept: public material that demonstrates or helps reproduce exploitation.
CSAF
Common Security Advisory Framework: a machine-readable format for security advisories.
LoTL
Living off the land: abuse of legitimate tools or system functions during an attack.
Free version - for non-commercial use only.CVE-2018-1272 · cve.blacktree.nl