CVE-2017-8039
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedAn issue was discovered in Pivotal Spring Web Flow through 2.4.5. Applications that do not change the value of the MvcViewFactoryCreator useSpringBinding property which is disabled by default (i.e., set to 'false') can be vulnerable to malicious EL expressions in view states that process form submissions but do not have a sub-element to declare explicit data binding property mappings. NOTE: this issue exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2017-4971.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceThis is an Expression Language (EL) injection vulnerability in Spring Web Flow's MvcViewFactoryCreator. When the useSpringBinding property remains at its default 'false' setting, and view states processing form submissions lack explicit data binding property mappings, attackers can inject malicious EL expressions through form parameters to achieve remote code execution.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data= 2.4.0= 2.4.1= 2.4.2= 2.4.4= 2.4.5CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify the installed Spring Web Flow versionCheck your project's dependency management (Maven pom.xml, Gradle build.gradle, or the spring-webflow jar MANIFEST.MF file) for the exact version of org.springframework.webflow:spring-webflowAffected if The installed version is 2.4.0, 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.4.4, or 2.4.5, meaning the version falls within the affected range
-
Locate the Spring Web Flow configuration fileFind the XML configuration file where MvcViewFactoryCreator is defined, typically named *-webflow.xml or webflow-config.xml, or locate the Java @Configuration class where webflow is configured via webflowConfig.setViewFactoryCreators()Affected if No configuration file containing MvcViewFactoryCreator settings is found (configuration may be relying entirely on defaults)
-
Inspect the useSpringBinding property settingIn the MvcViewFactoryCreator bean definition, look for the useSpringBinding attribute; if using XML config, search for '<property name="useSpringBinding" value="true" />' or verify it is not explicitly set to trueAffected if The useSpringBinding property is not explicitly set to 'true' (defaults to false), leaving explicit binding mappings required for protection
-
Verify explicit data binding mappings in view statesReview each <view-state> element in your web flow configuration that processes form submissions; for each view-state with an 'on-entry' or form binding reference, confirm <binding> sub-elements exist that explicitly map each bound property (e.g., <binding path="username"/>)Affected if View states that handle form submissions lack explicit <binding> property mappings, meaning any form parameter can be interpreted as an EL expression
-
Check for exposed form input parameters without bindingExamine your JSP, Thymeleaf, or other view templates that correspond to flow view states; identify any form input fields, hidden fields, or request parameters that bind to the flow scope without corresponding explicit <binding> entries in the view-state definitionAffected if Any form parameters are submitted to the flow without explicit binding constraints, potentially allowing EL injection
Your environment is affected if the Spring Web Flow version is 2.4.0-2.4.5 AND useSpringBinding remains at its default false setting AND view states processing form submissions lack explicit data binding property mappings.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataSet MvcViewFactoryCreator's useSpringBinding property to 'true' in the Spring Web Flow configuration, and ensure all view states processing form submissions have explicit data binding property mappings defined as sub-elements.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,752.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-8039 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2017-8039 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data