CVE-2026-41003
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 · uneditedAn attacker able to influence values in RelyingPartyRegistration may be able to run arbitrary code on HTML forms generated by Spring Security filters. Affected versions: Spring Security 5.7.0 through 5.7.23; 5.8.0 through 5.8.25; 6.3.0 through 6.3.16; 6.4.0 through 6.4.16; 6.5.0 through 6.5.10; 7.0.0 through 7.0.5.
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 · high confidenceCode injection vulnerability in Spring Security's OAuth2/SAML (RelyingPartyRegistration) functionality where an attacker who can influence registration values can execute arbitrary code through HTML forms generated by Spring Security filters. The attacker-controlled input in RelyingPartyRegistration gets rendered into HTML forms without proper sanitization, leading to code execution.
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>= 5.7.0, < 5.7.24>= 5.8.0, < 5.8.26>= 6.3.0, < 6.3.17>= 6.4.0, < 6.4.17>= 6.5.0, < 6.5.10.2>= 7.0.0, < 7.0.5.1CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
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 Spring Security versionCheck your project dependencies (pom.xml, build.gradle, or JAR manifest) for the spring-security-core or spring-security-config versionAffected if The installed version falls within any of the affected ranges: 5.7.0-5.7.23, 5.8.0-5.8.25, 6.3.0-6.3.16, 6.4.0-6.4.16, 6.5.0-6.5.10.1, or 7.0.0-7.0.5
-
Determine if OAuth2 RelyingPartyRegistration is configuredSearch configuration files (application.yml, application.properties, Java config classes) for RelyingPartyRegistration, spring.security.oauth2.client.registration, or similar OAuth2/OIDC configuration elementsAffected if RelyingPartyRegistration or OAuth2 client registration is configured in the application
-
Inspect the source of RelyingPartyRegistration valuesReview how RelyingPartyRegistration bean or properties are populated - check if values come from external configuration files, databases, or user-controlled sources versus hardcoded static valuesAffected if RelyingPartyRegistration values are loaded from external or configurable sources that could be influenced by an attacker
-
Verify if the application exposes OAuth2 login or SAML endpointsCheck if the application has endpoints that trigger rendering of OAuth2/SAML forms (typically /login, /oauth2/authorization, or custom RelyingParty endpoints)Affected if The application exposes OAuth2 login flows or SAML federation endpoints that render RelyingPartyRegistration values in HTML
You are affected if your Spring Security version is within the affected ranges AND you have OAuth2/OIDC RelyingPartyRegistration configured with values that could be influenced by untrusted input.
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 · scoped5.7.245.8.266.3.17
Update Spring Security to patched versions beyond the affected ranges. If immediate patching is not possible, review and sanitize all RelyingPartyRegistration configuration values, restrict administrative access to OAuth2/SAML configuration, and implement input validation on any user-influenced parameters passed to RelyingPartyRegistration.
Spring Security 5.7.24, 5.8.26, 6.3.17, 6.4.17, 6.5.11, or 7.0.6 (depending on your baseline branch)
- Identify the current Spring Security version in your project (check pom.xml or build.gradle)
- For Spring Security 5.7.x: upgrade to version 5.7.24 or later
- For Spring Security 5.8.x: upgrade to version 5.8.26 or later
- For Spring Security 6.3.x: upgrade to version 6.3.17 or later
- For Spring Security 6.4.x: upgrade to version 6.4.17 or later
- For Spring Security 6.5.x: upgrade to version 6.5.11 or later
- For Spring Security 7.0.x: upgrade to version 7.0.6 or later
- 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.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-41003 — 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-2026-41003 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