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 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.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (6.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 6.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 6.5 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.6% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-31). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at every mission impact level.CISA BOD 26-04: 60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at every mission impact level.
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it