CVE-2026-22745
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedSpring MVC and WebFlux applications are vulnerable to Denial of Service attacks when resolving static resources. More precisely, an application can be vulnerable when all the following are true: * the application is using Spring MVC or Spring WebFlux * the application is serving static resources from the file system * the application is running on a Windows platform When all the conditions above are met, the attacker can send malicious requests that are slow to resolve and that can keep HTTP connections in use. This can cause a Denial of Service on the application.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · moderate confidenceSpring MVC and WebFlux applications serving static resources from the filesystem on Windows platforms are vulnerable to Denial of Service attacks. Attackers can send specially crafted requests that resolve slowly on Windows file systems, causing HTTP connections to remain in use and exhausting server resources.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data< 5.3.48>= 6.1.0, < 6.1.27>= 6.2.0, < 6.2.18>= 7.0.0, < 7.0.7CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify the operating systemRun 'systeminfo' or check environment: on Windows, the application runs on a Windows host; container or cloud deployments may use Windows-based hostsAffected if The application runs on Windows platform (Windows Server, desktop Windows, or any Windows-based container/host)
-
Determine the Spring Framework versionCheck the project's dependency management (Maven pom.xml, Gradle build.gradle, or the spring-core JAR manifest); alternatively, inspect the classpath for spring-core-X.X.X.jar and note the version numberAffected if The Spring Framework version is < 5.3.48, OR >= 6.1.0 and < 6.1.27, OR >= 6.2.0 and < 6.2.18, OR >= 7.0.0 and < 7.0.7
-
Verify static resource serving configurationInspect the Spring application configuration (application.properties, application.yml, or Java config) for 'spring.web.resources.static-locations' or 'spring.mvc.static-path-pattern' settings; check if ResourceHandlerRegistry is configured in Java configurationAffected if Static resources are configured to be served from the filesystem (e.g., file: prefixes, custom file system paths) rather than exclusively from the classpath
-
Confirm Spring MVC or WebFlux is in useCheck dependencies for spring-webmvc or spring-webflux JARs; verify controllers use @Controller or @RestController (MVC) or functional routing (WebFlux)Affected if The application uses Spring MVC or Spring WebFlux to serve HTTP requests
A user is affected if the application runs on Windows, uses a vulnerable Spring Framework version, and serves static resources from the filesystem using Spring MVC or WebFlux.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
dbcve · scoped5.3.486.1.276.2.18
Move static resource serving to a reverse proxy or CDN, or update to the patched Spring Framework version when released. Avoid direct filesystem static resource serving on Windows deployments.
Upgrade to the first fixed version in your respective branch: 5.3.48, 6.1.27, 6.2.18, or 7.0.7
- 1. Identify the current Spring Framework version in use by checking project dependencies (pom.xml, build.gradle, or similar)
- 2. Determine which version branch your current version belongs to (5.3.x, 6.1.x, 6.2.x, or 7.0.x)
- 3. For Spring Framework 5.3.x users: upgrade to version 5.3.48 or later
- 4. For Spring Framework 6.1.x users: upgrade to version 6.1.27 or later
- 5. For Spring Framework 6.2.x users: upgrade to version 6.2.18 or later
- 6. For Spring Framework 7.0.x users: upgrade to version 7.0.7 or later
- 7. Update the Spring Framework dependency in your build configuration file
- 8. Rebuild and test the application to verify the upgrade does not break existing functionality
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-22745 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-22745 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data