Spring FrameworkFramework / library · VMware
CVE-2022-22965
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 · uneditedA Spring MVC or Spring WebFlux application running on JDK 9+ may be vulnerable to remote code execution (RCE) via data binding. The specific exploit requires the application to run on Tomcat as a WAR deployment. If the application is deployed as a Spring Boot executable jar, i.e. the default, it is not vulnerable to the exploit. However, the nature of the vulnerability is more general, and there may be other ways to exploit it.
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 confidenceCVE-2022-22965 (Spring4Shell) is a critical RCE vulnerability in Spring Framework affecting applications running on JDK 9+ when deployed as WAR on Tomcat. The exploit abuses Spring's data binding mechanism to achieve remote code execution. Spring Boot applications deployed as executable JARs (the default) are NOT vulnerable to the specific exploit, but may still be at risk if running vulnerable Spring Framework versions.
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
Spring FrameworkFramework / library
< 5.2.20>= 5.3.0, < 5.3.18
Cx Cloud AgentApplication
< 2.1.0= 1.9.0= 22.1.0= 1.9.0= 22.1.0= 22.1.0= 1.10.0= 22.1.0= 1.15.0= 22.1.0= 1.8.0= 1.15.0= 22.1.0CVSS 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
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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 Spring Framework version in useCheck your application's dependency tree (Maven pom.xml, Gradle build.gradle, or lib directory) for spring-core, spring-beans, or spring-webmvc JAR files and note their version numbersAffected if The Spring Framework version is < 5.2.20 OR >= 5.3.0 AND < 5.3.18
-
Verify JDK versionRun java -version from the command line or check the Java runtime configured for your Tomcat processAffected if JDK 9 or higher is in use (versions 9, 10, 11, 17, etc.)
-
Confirm WAR deployment on TomcatInspect your deployment artifact - if it is a .war file deployed to a Tomcat servlet container rather than an executable JAR, the application is in the vulnerable configurationAffected if The application is deployed as a WAR file to Apache Tomcat
-
Check if Spring data binding is in useReview application code for use of @ModelAttribute parameters in controllers, or check for DataBinder configuration - this feature is required for exploitationAffected if Spring MVC data binding through @ModelAttribute or explicit DataBinder is enabled in the application
Your environment is affected if you run a Spring Framework version < 5.2.20 or >= 5.3.0 but < 5.3.18, deployed as a WAR on Tomcat, using JDK 9+, with Spring data binding enabled.
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.
dbcve · scoped2.1.05.2.205.3.18
Upgrade Spring Framework to 5.3.18+, 5.2.20+, or later patched versions. Alternatively, migrate to Spring Boot 2.6.6+ or 2.5.12+ which bundle patched Spring Framework. If upgrade is not immediately feasible, consider temporarily deploying as executable JAR or downgrading to JDK 8 as a workaround.
Spring Framework 5.2.20+ or 5.3.18+ (or Spring Boot that includes these fixed versions)
- Identify all applications using affected Spring Framework versions (< 5.2.20 or >= 5.3.0 but < 5.3.18)
- For Spring Framework 5.2.x line: upgrade to version 5.2.20 or later
- For Spring Framework 5.3.x line: upgrade to version 5.3.18 or later
- If using Spring Boot, ensure it bundles a fixed Spring Framework version
- Test the upgrade in a non-production environment to verify functionality
- Deploy the fixed version to production
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Fix this in Spring Framework
Exploited in the wild — priority engagement
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-22965 — 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-2022-22965 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