Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2025-41243 is a critical-severity Code Injection (CWE-94) vulnerability in Spring Cloud Gateway (inferred from references). Its CVSS base score is 10.0 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 13% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
Spring Cloud Gateway Server Webflux is vulnerable to unauthorized modification of Spring Environment properties when the application also includes Spring Boot actuator as a dependency, exposes the gateway actuator endpoint via management.endpoints.web.exposure.include=gateway, and leaves those actuator endpoints both reachable and unsecured over the network. Spring Cloud Gateway Server WebMVC is explicitly not affected. The issue carries a CVSS 3.1 score of 10.0 and is associated with CWE-94 and CWE-917.
An unauthenticated attacker with network access to the exposed actuator endpoints can alter Environment properties, enabling remote code execution or other high-impact changes to confidentiality, integrity, and availability with scope change. The attack requires no user interaction and can be carried out directly against any instance meeting the listed preconditions.
The Spring security advisory at https://spring.io/security/cve-2025-41243 addresses mitigation steps for the affected component. Exploitation probability remains low, with an EPSS score of 0.0642 and a recorded peak of 0.0812.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-29611
Vulnerability Data
Spring Cloud Gateway Server Webflux may be vulnerable to Spring Environment property modification. An application should be considered vulnerable when all the following are true: * The application is using Spring Cloud Gateway Server Webflux (Spring Cloud Gateway Server WebMVC…
more
is not vulnerable). * Spring Boot actuator is a dependency. * The Spring Cloud Gateway Server Webflux actuator web endpoint is enabled via management.endpoints.web.exposure.include=gateway. * The actuator endpoints are available to attackers. * The actuator endpoints are unsecured.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.1.2V1.3.2V1.3.5V4.3.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation finds code paths that accept and execute externally influenced strings.
Input validation directly stops untrusted data from being used to construct executable code without neutralization.
Least privilege limits the damage an injected code fragment can perform once executed.
Requiring documented secure development standards and tools enforces use of safe code-generation APIs and escaping.
Security engineering principles include requirements for safe construction and sanitization of dynamic statements, structurally preventing expression-language injection at design time.
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.
PR.PS-06's SDLC practices directly target injection flaws via secure coding and testing (mostly), yet as a single broad outcome it leaves many code-generation specifics unaddressed (partial).
PR.DS-10 protects runtime data confidentiality/integrity but has no bearing on neutralizing externally influenced input during code generation, so neither direction shows any preventive effect.
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 EL injection but does not itself implement the fix.
Secure SDLC mandates input validation and output encoding that directly prevent expression-language injection.
Application security requirements explicitly call for controls against injection flaws including EL injection.
Secure architecture principles reduce the attack surface but do not prescribe the specific neutralization techniques needed.
Banning unapproved code samples and unauthenticated web services, combined with secure-coding standards and SAST, prevents the dynamic generation or inclusion of attacker-supplied code.
Controls that restrict unauthorized or malicious code from being introduced via external networks or removable media limit opportunities for an attacker to inject and execute arbitrary code.