Spring SecurityFramework / library · VMware
CVE-2022-22978
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 · uneditedIn spring security versions prior to 5.4.11+, 5.5.7+ , 5.6.4+ and older unsupported versions, RegexRequestMatcher can easily be misconfigured to be bypassed on some servlet containers. Applications using RegexRequestMatcher with `.` in the regular expression are possibly vulnerable to an authorization bypass.
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 confidenceRegexRequestMatcher in Spring Security has a regex bypass vulnerability when `.` is used in the pattern. The `.` metacharacter can match different characters depending on servlet container behavior, allowing attackers to bypass authorization checks by crafting requests that match the flawed regex pattern.
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 SecurityFramework / library
< 5.5.7>= 5.6.0, < 5.6.4
Active Iq Unified ManagerApplication
all versions= 8.0.8.2.0= 8.0.8.3.0CVSS 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 Security versionLocate the spring-security-core jar file in your project dependencies (check pom.xml, build.gradle, or the actual jar filename). Extract the version number from the filename or dependency declaration.Affected if The version is less than 5.4.11, or between 5.5.0 and 5.5.6 inclusive, or between 5.6.0 and 5.6.3 inclusive, or all versions of Netapp/Oracle products listed.
-
Find RegexRequestMatcher usage in security configurationSearch your codebase for imports and usages of org.springframework.security.web.util.matcher.RegexRequestMatcher. Check Java configuration files (often in a config package), XML security configuration files (typically spring-security.xml or similar), or annotation-based configurations using @RequestMatcher.Affected if RegexRequestMatcher is found in your security configuration code.
-
Inspect regex patterns for unescaped dot metacharacterLocate all RegexRequestMatcher constructor calls and examine the pattern string argument. Look for instances where a literal dot (.) appears in the pattern without being escaped as \. or being part of a character class like [.]Affected if The pattern contains any unescaped . metacharacters that could match unexpected characters depending on servlet container behavior.
-
Verify authorization rules use RegexRequestMatcherExamine the security filter chain configuration to determine which endpoints or URL patterns are protected by RegexRequestMatcher rules. Look for any antMatchers().regexMatchers() or RegexRequestMatcher references in your HttpSecurity or WebSecurityConfigurerAdapter configuration.Affected if RegexRequestMatcher is used to protect sensitive endpoints or enforce authorization rules.
You are affected if your Spring Security version is vulnerable AND your configuration uses RegexRequestMatcher with unescaped dot characters in patterns protecting sensitive resources.
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 · scoped5.5.75.6.4
Upgrade Spring Security to version 5.4.11+, 5.6.4+, or later. Additionally, review and harden all RegexRequestMatcher configurations by escaping `.` as `\.` or using more specific character classes.
Spring Security 5.6.4 (or minimum 5.5.7 or 5.4.11 depending on branch)
- Identify the current Spring Security version in the project's dependency management (e.g., pom.xml, build.gradle)
- Upgrade Spring Security to version 5.6.4 or later (or 5.5.7+ or 5.4.11+ depending on your branch)
- After upgrade, review all RegexRequestMatcher configurations and ensure any literal `.` characters in regex patterns are escaped as `\.` to prevent matching any character
- Rebuild the application and run all authorization-related tests
- Verify that the authorization rules using RegexRequestMatcher are functioning correctly and cannot be bypassed
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Fix this in Spring Security
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,080.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-22978 — 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-2022-22978 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