CVE-2025-41234
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:NSummary
CVE-2025-41234 is a medium-severity HTTP Request/Response Splitting (CWE-113) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 6.5 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Content Injection (T1659); ranked at the 42th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SI-10 (Information Input Validation) and SI-15 (Information Output Filtering) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-18218
Vulnerability Data
Description In Spring Framework, versions 6.0.x as of 6.0.5, versions 6.1.x and 6.2.x, an application is vulnerable to a reflected file download (RFD) attack when it sets a “Content-Disposition” header with a non-ASCII charset, where the filename attribute is derived…
more
from user-supplied input. Specifically, an application is vulnerable when all the following are true: * The header is prepared with org.springframework.http.ContentDisposition. * The filename is set via ContentDisposition.Builder#filename(String, Charset). * The value for the filename is derived from user-supplied input. * The application does not sanitize the user-supplied input. * The downloaded content of the response is injected with malicious commands by the attacker (see RFD paper reference for details). An application is not vulnerable if any of the following is true: * The application does not set a “Content-Disposition” response header. * The header is not prepared with org.springframework.http.ContentDisposition. * The filename is set via one of: * ContentDisposition.Builder#filename(String), or * ContentDisposition.Builder#filename(String, ASCII) * The filename is not derived from user-supplied input. * The filename is derived from user-supplied input but sanitized by the application. * The attacker cannot inject malicious content in the downloaded content of the response. Affected Spring Products and VersionsSpring Framework: * 6.2.0 - 6.2.7 * 6.1.0 - 6.1.20 * 6.0.5 - 6.0.28 * Older, unsupported versions are not affected MitigationUsers of affected versions should upgrade to the corresponding fixed version. Affected version(s)Fix versionAvailability6.2.x6.2.8OSS6.1.x6.1.21OSS6.0.x6.0.29 Commercial https://enterprise.spring.io/ No further mitigation steps are necessary. CWE-113 in `Content-Disposition` handling in VMware Spring Framework versions 6.0.5 to 6.2.7 allows remote attackers to launch Reflected File Download (RFD) attacks via unsanitized user input in `ContentDisposition.Builder#filename(String, Charset)` with non-ASCII charsets.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V3.4.2V4.1.3V1.3.6V4.2.3
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Input validation stops unneutralized CR/LF characters from being accepted and later emitted in HTTP headers.
Output filtering can neutralize CRLF sequences before they reach HTTP response headers.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure SDLC practices directly require input sanitization and header handling that prevent CRLF injection.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Security testing in development and acceptance can detect CRLF injection flaws before deployment.
Secure development lifecycle mandates input validation and output encoding that directly prevents CRLF injection into HTTP headers.
Application security requirements explicitly call for controls against injection flaws including HTTP header manipulation.
Secure architecture principles reduce the likelihood of header-splitting vulnerabilities through proper component isolation.
Secure coding standards require neutralization of CRLF sequences before inclusion in HTTP headers.
Logging of HTTP traffic can record header-splitting attempts, aiding detection and forensics.