Skip to content

CVE-2025-22233

Improper Input Validation: Is CVE-2025-22233 real, exploitable, or a false positive? Here's the community verdict.

☆ Watch

signals

public sources

Exploited in wild
Not listed
CISA KEV
Public exploit
None known
Metasploit/EDB/PoC
Base severity
3.1 Low
CVSS
Exploitation prob.
0.4%
FIRST EPSS
Weakness
CWE-20 · Improper Input Validation
CWE

Moderate signals. Triage by your actual exposure and reachability.

scanner noise

anonymous, aggregated from real reports · via Denoizr
ScannerFlagged inTurned out noise
Mend2 scans0%

How often this CVE was flagged by each scanner and how much turned out to be noise (false positives), aggregated anonymously from de-noised reports. Higher noise means the alert is more often not a real risk — verify your exposure.

baseline read

auto · not a community verdict

Low signal — verdict needed

Few public signals point to active risk. Whether a scanner hit here is a true or false positive depends on your version and config — community verdicts decide.

Based on CVSS · FIRST EPSS

Confirm or dispute →

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N

CVE-2024-38820 ensured Locale-independent, lowercase conversion for both the configured disallowedFields patterns and for request parameter names. However, there are still cases where it is possible to bypass the disallowedFields checks. Affected Spring Products and Versions Spring Framework: * 6.2.0 - 6.2.6 * 6.1.0 - 6.1.19 * 6.0.0 - 6.0.27 * 5.3.0 - 5.3.42 * Older, unsupported versions are also affected Mitigation Users of affected versions should upgrade to the corresponding fixed version. Affected version(s)Fix Version Availability 6.2.x 6.2.7 OSS6.1.x 6.1.20 OSS6.0.x 6.0.28 Commercial https://enterprise.spring.io/ 5.3.x 5.3.43 Commercial https://enterprise.spring.io/ No further mitigation steps are necessary. Generally, we recommend using a dedicated model object with properties only for data binding, or using constructor binding since constructor arguments explicitly declare what to bind together with turning off setter binding through the declarativeBinding flag. See the Model Design section in the reference documentation. For setting binding, prefer the use of allowedFields (an explicit list) over disallowedFields. Credit This issue was responsibly reported by the TERASOLUNA Framework Development Team from NTT DATA Group Corporation.

References

NVD MITRE CVE.org

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2025-22233
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2025-22233/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2025-22233)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2025-22233"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2025-22233/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2025-22233"></a>

Live badge that updates automatically as the community verdict changes.

Community ground truth

Be the first practitioner to weigh in

So far this is only TruePositive's editorial baseline from public sources. Add your real-world verdict below — it becomes the signal the next person triaging this relies on.

🥇 The first 50 practitioners to contribute earn a Founding Contributor badge.

In your experience, is this finding real and exploitable?

awaiting field verdicts
Real, but not a risk here
Not a real issue

Curated baseline: A curated baseline from public sources, shown separately from community verdicts.

No account needed. Anonymous verdicts post as an unverified signal. Log in to make yours verified and earn reputation.

Field notes & remediation

Verdicts are the quick signal. Notes are the evidence and fixes behind them.

  • 0
    Field note · TruePositive EditorialCurated

    No confirmed in-the-wild exploitation or public exploit was found for this yet.

Add a field note or remediationoptional
Note type

What are you adding?

Markdown supported · minimum 20 characters.

Related CVEs

Same weakness: CWE-20 · Improper Input Validation.