CVE-2026-41842
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 (DoS) attacks when resolving static resources. 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 MVC and WebFlux applications are vulnerable to Denial of Service attacks when resolving static resources. The vulnerability exists in the static resource resolution mechanism and affects multiple major version branches of the Spring 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>= 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
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/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 versionLocate the Spring Framework library in your project dependencies. Check pom.xml, build.gradle, or the spring-core JAR manifest for the version number. If using a Spring Boot project, the spring-core version is typically managed by spring-boot-starter-parent or the spring-boot-dependencies BOM.Affected if The installed Spring Framework version falls within any of these ranges: 5.3.0 to 5.3.48, 6.1.0 to 6.1.27, 6.2.0 to 6.2.18, or 7.0.0 to 7.0.7
-
Verify static resource handling is enabledCheck your application configuration for static resource handlers. In Spring MVC, look for ResourceHandlerRegistry configuration in a WebMvcConfigurer bean. In Spring WebFlux, look for ResourceHandlerRegistry in a WebFluxConfigurer. Also check application.properties or application.yaml for spring.web.resources.static-locations or similar static resource settings.Affected if Static resource handling is explicitly configured and the application serves static content from paths like /resources/**, /static/**, /public/**, or custom resource mappings
-
Confirm application is web-exposedVerify that your Spring application has web endpoints exposed externally. Check if the application runs as a web app (WAR or embedded container) and listens on a reachable network interface, rather than running only internally or as a batch process.Affected if The application accepts HTTP requests from network clients, making it reachable over HTTP/HTTPS
You are affected if your application uses 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) AND serves static resources via Spring's resource handlers on an externally accessible endpoint.
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 version 7.0.8 or later, 6.2.19 or later, 6.1.28 or later, or 5.3.49 or later to patch the vulnerability. If immediate upgrade is not possible, review and restrict access to static resource endpoints as a temporary mitigation.
5.3.49 (for 5.3.x), 6.1.28 (for 6.1.x), 6.2.18.1 (for 6.2.x), or 7.0.7.1 (for 7.0.x)
- 1. Identify the current Spring Framework version in your project by checking your build configuration (pom.xml, build.gradle, or equivalent)
- 2. Determine which major version branch you are on (5.3.x, 6.1.x, 6.2.x, or 7.0.x)
- 3. Update the Spring Framework dependency to the fixed version for your branch: 5.3.49 for 5.3.x, 6.1.28 for 6.1.x, 6.2.18.1 for 6.2.x, or 7.0.7.1 for 7.0.x
- 4. Rebuild and test your application to ensure the upgrade does not introduce regressions
- 5. Deploy the updated application
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- 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-2026-41842 — 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-2026-41842 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