CVE-2025-22228
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 · uneditedBCryptPasswordEncoder.matches(CharSequence,String) will incorrectly return true for passwords larger than 72 characters as long as the first 72 characters are the same.
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 confidenceBCryptPasswordEncoder.matches() in Spring Security incorrectly returns true for passwords longer than 72 characters as long as the first 72 characters match. This occurs because BCrypt's underlying algorithm truncates password comparisons at 72 bytes, creating a logic flaw where different passwords exceeding this length could authenticate as the same user.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
CVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/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.
-
Confirm Spring Security is in useInspect your project dependencies (Maven pom.xml, Gradle build.gradle, or JAR manifests) for spring-security-core or related Spring Security modules.Affected if Spring Security is present but the version is unpatched for this vulnerability
-
Identify the Spring Security versionRun 'mvn dependency:tree | grep spring-security' or 'gradle dependencies | grep spring-security' to determine the exact Spring Security version in your dependency tree.Affected if The version matches the range that contains the flawed BCryptPasswordEncoder logic (compare against official Spring Security advisories)
-
Verify BCryptPasswordEncoder is configuredSearch your Java or XML configuration files for 'BCryptPasswordEncoder' bean definitions, or look for PasswordEncoder usage in authentication configuration.Affected if BCryptPasswordEncoder is being used as the password encoder in your application
-
Check for password length validationInspect your password registration or change validation logic for any @Size, @Length, or programmatic checks that enforce maximum password length.Affected if No validation enforces a maximum password length of 72 characters or fewer, allowing longer passwords to be stored
You are affected if your application uses a vulnerable version of Spring Security with BCryptPasswordEncoder enabled and does not enforce password length constraints, allowing passwords longer than 72 characters to authenticate incorrectly.
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 dataUpgrade to a patched version of Spring Security that fixes the BCryptPasswordEncoder comparison logic. As a defensive measure, consider enforcing maximum password length constraints or implementing additional verification for accounts with long passwords.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $3,328.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-22228 — 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-2025-22228 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