Spring For Apache KafkaWeb server / proxy · VMware
CVE-2026-41727
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 Kafka's retry topic infrastructure did not sufficiently validate user-controlled header values before acting on them. A producer could send a record with a crafted retry_topic-attempts header to supply an out-of-range attempt count and cause the retry topic router to misidentify where the message was in the retry sequence. Affected versions: Spring for Apache Kafka 4.0.0 through 4.0.5; 3.3.0 through 3.3.15; 3.2.0 through 3.2.13; 2.9.0 through 2.9.13; 2.8.0 through 2.8.11.
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 confidenceSpring Kafka's retry topic infrastructure fails to validate the retry_topic-attempts header value from incoming records. An attacker can supply an out-of-range attempt count via this user-controlled header, causing the retry topic router to misidentify the message's position in the retry sequence and route messages incorrectly.
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
Spring For Apache KafkaWeb server / proxy
>= 2.8.0, < 2.8.12>= 2.9.0, < 2.9.14>= 3.2.0, < 3.2.14>= 3.3.0, < 3.3.15.1>= 4.0.0, < 4.0.5.1CVSS 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
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
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 installed Spring Kafka versionCheck your project dependency management (Maven pom.xml, Gradle build.gradle, or similar) for the org.springframework.kafka:spring-kafka library versionAffected if The installed version falls within any of these ranges: 2.8.0-2.8.11, 2.9.0-2.9.13, 3.2.0-3.2.13, 3.3.0-3.3.15, or 4.0.0-4.0.5
-
Confirm retry topic feature is in useSearch codebase for @RetryableTopic annotation on @KafkaListener or @KafkaTemplate methods, or check application properties for retry.topic.enabled=trueAffected if Retry topic infrastructure is enabled and actively processing messages through retry topics
-
Inspect retry topic configurationReview Kafka consumer and producer configs related to retry topics: look for retry.topic.attempts.max, retry.topic.num_retries, or similar retry-related properties in your configuration filesAffected if Retry topic configuration exists and the application processes messages through retry sequences
-
Audit recent retry message routingExamine Kafka broker logs or consumer application logs for messages with unexpected retry_topic-attempts header values, or check if retry messages are landing in incorrect retry topic partitionsAffected if Retry messages are being routed to unexpected positions in the retry sequence or landing in wrong topics
-
Check for out-of-range attempts header handlingReview application logs or enable DEBUG logging for RetryTopicConfiguration to observe how retry_topic-attempts header values are processedAffected if The application accepts and processes retry_topic-attempts header values without validation or throws errors on valid attempt counts
You are affected if your Spring Kafka version is within the affected ranges AND you have retry topic functionality enabled and processing messages through the retry infrastructure.
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 · scoped2.8.122.9.143.2.14
Upgrade Spring for Apache Kafka to a patched version. If immediate upgrade is not possible, implement application-level validation of the retry_topic-attempts header before messages reach the retry infrastructure.
Minimum fixed versions: 2.8.12, 2.9.14, 3.2.14, 3.3.15.1, or 4.0.6 (choose the branch matching your current version)
- Upgrade Spring for Apache Kafka to version 2.8.12 or later for the 2.8.x line
- Upgrade Spring for Apache Kafka to version 2.9.14 or later for the 2.9.x line
- Upgrade Spring for Apache Kafka to version 3.2.14 or later for the 3.2.x line
- Upgrade Spring for Apache Kafka to version 3.3.15.1 or later for the 3.3.x line
- Upgrade Spring for Apache Kafka to version 4.0.6 or later for the 4.0.x line
- After upgrading, verify that retry topic functionality works correctly with valid header values
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Fix this in Spring For Apache Kafka
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $3,328.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-41727 — 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-2026-41727 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