Spring FrameworkFramework / library · VMware
CVE-2026-41840
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 WebFlux applications are vulnerable to Denial of Service (DoS) attacks when processing multipart requests. Affected versions: Spring Framework 7.0.0 through 7.0.7, 6.2.0 through 6.2.18, 6.1.0 through 6.1.27, 5.3.0 through 5.3.48.
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 WebFlux contains a denial of service vulnerability in multipart request handling. Attackers can send specially crafted multipart requests to exhaust server resources and cause service unavailability. The vulnerability affects both reactive and non-reactive multipart processing paths within the WebFlux framework.
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 FrameworkFramework / library
>= 5.3.0, < 5.3.49>= 6.1.0, < 6.1.28>= 6.2.0, < 6.2.18.1>= 7.0.0, < 7.0.7.1CVSS 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
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/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 Spring Framework versionCheck your project build file (pom.xml, build.gradle) or the spring-core JAR manifest for the Spring Framework version. In a running application, you can also inspect the org.springframework.core.SpringVersion class or check the classpath for spring-core-*.jarAffected if The installed version falls within any of these ranges: >= 5.3.0 and < 5.3.49, >= 6.1.0 and < 6.1.28, >= 6.2.0 and < 6.2.18.1, or >= 7.0.0 and < 7.0.7.1
-
Confirm WebFlux is in useCheck for spring-boot-starter-webflux or spring-webflux dependency in your build configuration, or verify that your application uses reactive Spring WebFlux controllers (org.springframework.web.reactive.function package)Affected if Spring WebFlux is used as the web framework
-
Verify multipart upload functionality is enabledCheck your application properties (application.yml or application.properties) for multipart configuration such as spring.webflux.multipart.* settings, or look for @PostMapping endpoints that consume MediaType.MULTIPART_FORM_DATAAffected if Multipart file upload is enabled or there are endpoints accepting file uploads
-
Inspect current multipart configuration limitsExamine your application.properties/yml for spring.webflux.multipart.max-in-memory-size, spring.webflux.multipart.max-disk-usage-per-part, or any custom file upload limit configurationsAffected if No explicit size limits are configured for multipart requests (max-in-memory-size, max-disk-usage-per-part are not set or are set to very high values)
You are affected if your application runs a vulnerable Spring Framework version (5.3.0-5.3.48, 6.1.0-6.1.27, 6.2.0-6.2.18, or 7.0.0-7.0.7), uses Spring WebFlux, and has multipart file upload endpoints without proper size limits configured.
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 · scoped5.3.496.1.286.2.18.1
Upgrade Spring Framework to versions 7.0.8+, 6.2.19+, 6.1.28+, or 5.3.49+ respectively. Additionally, implement request size limits and timeout configurations on the multipart resolver to provide defense-in-depth.
Spring Framework 5.3.49, 6.1.28, 6.2.18.1, or 7.0.7.1 (choose the appropriate version for your branch)
- 1. Identify the current Spring Framework version in use by checking project dependencies (e.g., pom.xml, build.gradle)
- 2. Determine which affected version branch your application uses (5.3.x, 6.1.x, 6.2.x, or 7.0.x)
- 3. For Spring Boot users: upgrade to a version that includes the fixed Spring Framework, or directly override the Spring Framework version
- 4. For Maven projects: update the spring-framework-version property or directly specify the fixed version in dependency management
- 5. For Gradle projects: update the Spring Framework dependency version in build.gradle
- 6. Rebuild and test the application to ensure multipart request handling works correctly
- 7. Deploy the updated application
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Fix this in Spring Framework
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing12.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $7,616.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-41840 — 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-2026-41840 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