VulnerabilityPublished 12 Jun 2025

CVE-2025-41234: VMware Spring Framework · HTTP Response Splitting

Affects VMware Spring FrameworkSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 10:12 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.6% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 48% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: Low
Availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
Scope: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
Confidentiality: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 12 Jun 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 26 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
VMware Spring Framework	Affected =6.0.5 =6.1.0 =6.2.0 <=6.0.28 >=6.1.0 <=6.1.20 >=6.2.0 <=6.2.7	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Upgrade all affected Spring Framework instances to the fixed versions: 6.2.8, 6.1.21, or 6.0.29 as applicable. This is the primary and most effective mitigation.
Review application code to ensure that the Content-Disposition header is not set using ContentDisposition.Builder#filename(String, Charset) with non-ASCII charsets on unsanitized user input.
Implement strict input validation and sanitization on any user-supplied data used in HTTP headers, especially filenames, to remove CRLF characters and other control sequences.
Where possible, restrict the charset used in Content-Disposition headers to ASCII or use the filename(String) method variant that does not accept Charset parameters.
Employ Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) with rules to detect and block HTTP response splitting attempts or suspicious CRLF injection patterns in headers.
Conduct security code reviews and penetration testing focused on HTTP header injection vulnerabilities.
Educate developers about secure handling of HTTP headers and the risks of reflected file download attacks.
Monitor web application logs for unusual header manipulations or unexpected Content-Disposition values that could indicate exploitation attempts.

Description

Description In Spring Framework, versions 6.0.x as of 6.0.5, versions 6.1.x and 6.2.x, an application is vulnerable to a reflected file download (RFD) attack when it sets a “Content-Disposition” header with a non-ASCII charset, where the filename attribute is derived from user-supplied input. Specifically, an application is vulnerable when all the following are true: * The header is prepared with org.springframework.http.ContentDisposition. * The filename is set via ContentDisposition.Builder#filename(String, Charset). * The value for the filename is derived from user-supplied input. * The application does not sanitize the user-supplied input. * The downloaded content of the response is injected with malicious commands by the attacker (see RFD paper reference for details). An application is not vulnerable if any of the following is true: * The application does not set a “Content-Disposition” response header. * The header is not prepared with org.springframework.http.ContentDisposition. * The filename is set via one of: * ContentDisposition.Builder#filename(String), or * ContentDisposition.Builder#filename(String, ASCII) * The filename is not derived from user-supplied input. * The filename is derived from user-supplied input but sanitized by the application. * The attacker cannot inject malicious content in the downloaded content of the response. Affected Spring Products and VersionsSpring Framework: * 6.2.0 - 6.2.7 * 6.1.0 - 6.1.20 * 6.0.5 - 6.0.28 * Older, unsupported versions are not affected MitigationUsers of affected versions should upgrade to the corresponding fixed version. Affected version(s)Fix versionAvailability6.2.x6.2.8OSS6.1.x6.1.21OSS6.0.x6.0.29 Commercial https://enterprise.spring.io/ No further mitigation steps are necessary. CWE-113 in `Content-Disposition` handling in VMware Spring Framework versions 6.0.5 to 6.2.7 allows remote attackers to launch Reflected File Download (RFD) attacks via unsanitized user input in `ContentDisposition.Builder#filename(String, Charset)` with non-ASCII charsets.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2025-41234 can be significant, especially for those relying on the affected Spring Framework versions in web applications that handle file downloads with user-supplied filenames. Successful exploitation could lead to the execution of malicious files on client machines, resulting in credential compromise, data theft, or further malware infection. This is particularly critical for sectors with sensitive data such as finance, healthcare, and government services. Since the attack requires user interaction (e.g., clicking a malicious link), phishing campaigns could leverage this vulnerability to increase their effectiveness. The medium CVSS score reflects that while the attack complexity is high, the potential confidentiality breach is severe. The vulnerability could undermine trust in web applications and lead to regulatory consequences under GDPR if personal data is compromised. Additionally, the scope change indicates that the vulnerability affects components beyond the immediate application, potentially impacting integrated systems. However, the lack of known exploits in the wild suggests that immediate widespread impact is limited but should not be underestimated given the critical nature of the flaw.

Summary

CVE-2025-41234 is a vulnerability classified under CWE-113 (Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences in HTTP Headers), specifically affecting the VMware Spring Framework versions 6.0.5 through 6.2.7. The issue arises when an application uses the Spring Framework's org.springframework.http.ContentDisposition class to set the HTTP "Content-Disposition" header with a filename parameter derived from unsanitized user input and encoded with a non-ASCII charset. This improper handling allows an attacker to perform a Reflected File Download (RFD) attack, a variant of HTTP response splitting. In this attack, malicious CRLF sequences injected into the filename can manipulate the HTTP response headers and body, causing the victim's browser to download and execute a malicious file crafted by the attacker. The vulnerability requires that the filename is set using ContentDisposition.Builder#filename(String, Charset) with a non-ASCII charset, and that the filename is directly derived from user input without sanitization. Applications that do not set the Content-Disposition header, use ASCII charset or the filename(String) method, sanitize input, or do not allow injection of malicious content in the response are not vulnerable. The vulnerability impacts confidentiality severely, as it can lead to the execution of attacker-controlled files in the context of the victim's browser, potentially leading to credential theft or session hijacking. Integrity is moderately impacted due to the possibility of injecting malicious content, while availability is not affected. The CVSS 3.1 base score is 6.5 (medium severity), reflecting network attack vector, high attack complexity, low privileges required, user interaction required, and a scope change with high confidentiality impact and low integrity impact. No known exploits are currently reported in the wild. Fixed versions are available: 6.2.8, 6.1.21, and 6.0.29, with users advised to upgrade accordingly. No additional mitigations beyond upgrading are specified by the vendor.

CWE-113Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences in HTTP Headers ('HTTP Request/Response Splitting') (opens in a new tab)
Variant weaknessOWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product receives data from an HTTP agent/component (e.g., web server, proxy, browser, etc.), but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes CR and LF characters before the data is included in outgoing HTTP headers.
Implementation · Input Validation
Construct HTTP headers very carefully, avoiding the use of non-validated input data.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. If an input does not strictly conform to specifications, reject it or transform it into something that conforms.
Implementation · Output Encoding
Use and specify an output encoding that can be handled by the downstream component that is reading the output. Common encodings include ISO-8859-1, UTF-7, and UTF-8.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
SQL Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention in Java (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
HTTP Request Splitting (opens in a new tab)
Accessing/Intercepting/Modifying HTTP Cookies (opens in a new tab)
HTTP Response Splitting (opens in a new tab)
AJAX Footprinting (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 12 Jun 2025, 21:39 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-113

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats