CVE-2023-20859
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 Vault, versions 3.0.x prior to 3.0.2 and versions 2.3.x prior to 2.3.3 and older versions, an application is vulnerable to insertion of sensitive information into a log file when it attempts to revoke a Vault batch token.
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 · moderate confidenceSpring Vault versions prior to 3.0.2 and 2.3.3 contain a vulnerability where sensitive information (specifically related to Vault batch tokens) is inadvertently written to log files when the application attempts to revoke a batch token. This exposes potentially privileged credentials through log inspection.
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>= 3.1.0, <= 3.1.6>= 4.0.0, <= 4.0.1>= 3.1.0, <= 3.1.2= 4.0.0>= 2.3.0, < 2.3.3>= 3.0.0, < 3.0.2CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/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 Spring Vault versionInspect your project's dependency management file (Maven pom.xml, Gradle build.gradle, or the compiled library jar manifest) for the spring-vault-core or spring-cloud-vault-config artifact versionAffected if version is >= 2.3.0 and < 2.3.3, or >= 3.0.0 and < 3.0.2
-
Check if Spring Cloud Config is usedInspect your project's dependencies for spring-cloud-config-client and determine its version from pom.xml, build.gradle, or jar manifestAffected if version is >= 3.1.0 and <= 3.1.6, or >= 4.0.0 and <= 4.0.1
-
Check if Spring Cloud Vault is usedInspect your project's dependencies for spring-cloud-vault-config and determine its version from pom.xml, build.gradle, or jar manifestAffected if version is >= 3.1.0 and <= 3.1.2, or = 4.0.0
-
Verify batch token usageExamine your Vault configuration properties (application.yml or application.properties) for vault.config.token-type=batch or similar batch token configurationAffected if batch token mode is configured and the Spring Vault version falls within the affected ranges
-
Inspect application logs for sensitive dataSearch your application log files for patterns indicating batch token revocation attempts, such as log entries containing 'revoke' combined with token-like strings or batch token identifiersAffected if logs contain raw or partial batch token values during revocation operations
You are affected if your application uses Spring Vault, Spring Cloud Config, or Spring Cloud Vault within the listed version ranges AND uses batch tokens for Vault authentication, with sensitive token data potentially exposed in logs.
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 · scoped2.3.33.0.2
Upgrade Spring Vault to version 3.0.2, 2.3.3, or later to obtain the fix that prevents sensitive token data from being logged during revocation operations.
Spring Vault: 2.3.3 or 3.0.2 (or newer); Spring Cloud Vault: 3.1.3 or 4.0.1 (or newer); Spring Cloud Config: 3.1.7 or 4.0.2 (or newer)
- 1. Identify the exact Spring Vault, Spring Cloud Vault, or Spring Cloud Config dependency version in your project (check pom.xml or build.gradle)
- 2. For Spring Vault: Upgrade to version 2.3.3 or 3.0.2 or later
- 3. For Spring Cloud Vault: Upgrade to version 3.1.3 or 4.0.1 or later (the next patch release after your current version)
- 4. For Spring Cloud Config: Upgrade to version 3.1.7 or 4.0.2 or later (the next patch release after your current version)
- 5. Rebuild your project and verify the upgrade resolves the logging of sensitive token information when revoking batch tokens
- 6. Review application logs after token revocation operations to confirm sensitive data is no longer being written
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation3.0 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 $3,072.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-20859 — 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-2023-20859 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