The 73rd Byte: How a Spring Security Fix Created a Timing Leak

Spring Security is the gold standard for Java authentication. But in early 2025, the maintainers learned a hard lesson in "fixing things until they break." This is the story of CVE-2025-22234, a vulnerability that proves the road to hell is paved with good intentions—and strict input validation.

It all started when someone realized the BCrypt algorithm has a fundamental limitation: it silently ignores any password characters beyond the 72nd byte. Spring decided to fix this "silent truncation" by throwing an error if a user provided a long password. Sounds reasonable, right? It's better to fail loud than to give a false sense of security.

Wrong. By throwing that error indiscriminately, they accidentally gave attackers a high-precision stopwatch and a map to every valid username in the database. It’s like installing a high-tech burglar alarm that screams "NOBODY IS HOME" the second someone touches the doorknob.

To understand this bug, you have to understand the ancient curse of BCrypt. The algorithm has a hard limit: it only hashes the first 72 bytes of input. Anything after that is ghost data. In a previous patch (CVE-2025-22228), Spring Security decided to enforce this limit strictly.

The logic was added to the BCrypt class: if password.length > 72, throw an IllegalArgumentException. The problem is that authentication happens in two distinct contexts:

1. Registration (Encoding): We definitely want to stop users from creating passwords that will be truncated.
2. Login (Matching): We are just checking if the input matches the stored hash.

The developers applied the exception to both scenarios. This created a logic bomb inside DaoAuthenticationProvider, the component responsible for juggling user lookups and password checks.

Let's look at DaoAuthenticationProvider. It tries to be clever to prevent timing attacks. If a user isn't found in the database, it runs a "dummy" hash operation so the request takes roughly the same amount of time as a successful lookup.

if (user == null) {
    // Run a dummy check to waste time and hide the fact the user is missing
    mitigateAgainstTimingAttack(authentication);
    throw new BadCredentialsException(...);
}

Inside mitigateAgainstTimingAttack, it calls the vulnerable BCrypt method. In version 6.4.4, the code looked like this:

private static String hashpw(byte passwordb[], String salt, boolean for_check) {
    // THE BUG: This throws immediately, before any CPU work is done
    if (passwordb.length > 72) {
        throw new IllegalArgumentException("password cannot be more than 72 bytes");
    }
    // ... expensive hashing loop that takes ~100ms ...
}

Do you see it? If I send a 73-byte password for a non-existent user, the "dummy" check crashes instantly due to the exception. It doesn't waste time. It exits.

However, if the user exists, the application loads the user details first, potentially checks the hash differently, or hits the exception later in the pipeline. This creates a massive timing gap.

This vulnerability allows for a classic Side-Channel Timing Attack. We can enumerate users by measuring how fast the server rejects us. Here is the attack chain:

1. Identify Target: Find a Spring Security login form.
2. Establish Baseline: Send a normal login request. Note the average response time (e.g., 150ms).
3. The Probe: Send a login request with the username admin and a password string of 75 As.

The Results:

• Result A (User NOT Found): The DaoAuthenticationProvider sees user == null. It calls mitigateAgainstTimingAttack. The BCrypt class sees 75 bytes and throws the exception immediately. Total time: ~5ms.
• Result B (User FOUND): The provider loads the user from the DB. It proceeds to check the password. Even if it eventually fails, the DB lookup and object hydration take time. Total time: ~150ms.

[!NOTE] The difference between 5ms and 150ms is an eternity in network terms. It's trivially easy to distinguish, even with network jitter.

The fix, released in version 6.4.5 (and others), is elegant in its simplicity. The developers realized they needed to distinguish between creating a password and checking one.

The patched code introduces context awareness using the for_check boolean:

private static String hashpw(byte passwordb[], String salt, boolean for_check) {
    // FIXED: Only enforce length limit if we are NOT checking (i.e., we are encoding a new password)
    if (!for_check && passwordb.length > 72) {
        throw new IllegalArgumentException("password cannot be more than 72 bytes");
    }
    // Proceed with hashing (using first 72 bytes) to maintain timing consistency
    // ...
}

Now, if I send a long password for a ghost user, the system shrugs, proceeds to the expensive hashing loop (using the first 72 bytes), and returns in 150ms. The timing leak is plugged because the "dummy" calculation actually runs, ensuring User Found and User Not Found take the same amount of time.