VulnerabilityPublished 19 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-22737: Spring Framework · Path Traversal

Affects Spring FrameworkSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.9 Medium.

Data as of 31 Oct 2026, 20:20 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.9Medium

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 34% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: None
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: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
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: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 19 Mar 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: 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 31 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.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), 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
SpringSpring Framework	Affected >=7.0.0 <=7.0.5 >=6.2.0 <=6.2.16 >=6.1.0 <=6.1.25 >=5.3.0 <=5.3.46	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Immediately review and disable Java scripting engines (e.g., JRuby, Jython) for template views in Spring MVC and Spring WebFlux applications unless explicitly required.
Monitor official Spring Framework security advisories for patches addressing CVE-2026-22737 and apply updates promptly once available.
Implement strict access controls and file system permissions to limit the exposure of sensitive files to the application runtime environment.
Conduct code audits to identify and refactor any usage of scripting engines in template rendering that could lead to this vulnerability.
Employ runtime application self-protection (RASP) or web application firewalls (WAFs) with custom rules to detect and block suspicious template rendering requests that attempt to access unauthorized files.
Use application-level logging and monitoring to detect anomalous access patterns or errors related to template rendering.
Educate development teams about the risks of enabling scripting engines in template views and encourage secure coding practices.
Consider architectural changes to avoid reliance on dynamic scripting engines for template rendering where feasible.

Description

Use of Java scripting engine enabled (e.g. JRuby, Jython) template views in Spring MVC and Spring WebFlux applications can result in disclosure of content from files outside the configured locations for script template views. This issue affects Spring Framework: from 7.0.0 through 7.0.5, from 6.2.0 through 6.2.16, from 6.1.0 through 6.1.25, from 5.3.0 through 5.3.46.

Impact

The vulnerability can lead to unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information stored in files outside the intended template directories, potentially exposing configuration files, credentials, or other confidential data. This can compromise the confidentiality of enterprise applications using the affected Spring Framework versions with enabled scripting engines. Since the vulnerability does not affect integrity or availability, the primary risk is data leakage. The attack complexity is high, which may limit exploitation to skilled attackers, but no authentication or user interaction is required, increasing exposure for internet-facing applications. Organizations with critical applications built on Spring MVC or WebFlux that utilize JRuby, Jython, or similar scripting engines for template rendering are at particular risk. The absence of known exploits in the wild currently reduces immediate threat but does not eliminate future risk. The widespread use of Spring Framework in enterprise Java applications globally means the potential impact is broad, especially in sectors handling sensitive data such as finance, healthcare, and government.

CWE-22Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory (Path Traversal) (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #6OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but the product does not properly neutralize special elements within the pathname that can cause the pathname to resolve to a location that is outside of the restricted directory.
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. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
Architecture and Design
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks…
Implementation · Input Validation
Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Path Traversal (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes and URL Encoding Combined to Bypass Validation Logic (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls (opens in a new tab)
Using Escaped Slashes in Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes in Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

spring.io/security/cve-2026-22737 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 20 Mar 2026, 00:24 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-22

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats