CVE-2026-41845
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 · uneditedDue to incorrect escaping, the use of JavaScriptUtils.javaScriptEscape() may lead to JavaScript code injection in the browser, potentially resulting in a cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability. 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 · high confidenceThe JavaScriptUtils.javaScriptEscape() method in Spring Framework fails to properly escape special characters, allowing attackers to inject arbitrary JavaScript code that executes in victim browsers. This XSS vulnerability stems from incorrect escaping logic in a widely-used utility method.
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
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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 installed Spring Framework versionInspect your project's dependency management file (pom.xml, build.gradle, or build.gradle.kts) for the spring-core or spring-framework version, or examine the spring-core-*.jar file in your classpath and check the MANIFEST.MF for the Implementation-Version attribute.Affected if The 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
-
Locate usage of JavaScriptUtils.javaScriptEscape()Search your codebase for imports of org.springframework.web.util.JavaScriptUtils and any calls to javaScriptEscape() method, using grep or your IDE's search functionality.Affected if The method is found in your codebase
-
Determine if javaScriptEscape() receives untrusted inputInspect each call site of javaScriptEscape() and trace the source of the argument being passed to it; check if the input originates from HTTP request parameters, headers, user-uploaded content, database fields, or other user-controllable sources.Affected if The argument passed to javaScriptEscape() contains or could contain data from untrusted sources such as user requests, external APIs, or unvalidated database content
-
Verify the escape output is rendered in a web contextReview where the return value of javaScriptEscape() is used - verify if it is written to HTTP responses, rendered in templates (JSP, Thymeleaf, FreeMarker), or included in JSON/XML responses that browsers or clients will process.Affected if The escaped output is served to browsers or clients in HTML/JavaScript contexts such as inlined scripts, event handlers, or JSON data
You are affected if your Spring Framework version is within one of the vulnerable ranges AND your codebase uses JavaScriptUtils.javaScriptEscape() on untrusted input that gets rendered in web pages.
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+, 6.2.19+, 6.1.28+, or 5.3.49+. Alternatively, audit code using JavaScriptUtils.javaScriptEscape() and implement additional output encoding or Content-Security-Policy headers as defense-in-depth.
Spring Framework 5.3.49, 6.1.28, 6.2.18.1, or 7.0.7.1 (or later)
- 1. Identify all dependencies in your project that use Spring Framework (check pom.xml, build.gradle, or similar build files)
- 2. Locate the Spring Framework dependency declarations (typically spring-core, spring-web, or spring-framework-bom)
- 3. Update the version properties or direct version declarations to one of the fixed releases: 5.3.49+, 6.1.28+, 6.2.18.1+, or 7.0.7.1+
- 4. For Maven projects, update the version in pom.xml: change <version>5.3.48</version> to <version>5.3.49</version> (or equivalent for your major version)
- 5. For Gradle projects, update: implementation 'org.springframework:spring-core:5.3.49' (or equivalent)
- 6. Run your build tool to resolve the new dependencies (mvn clean install or ./gradlew build)
- 7. Run your application's test suite to verify functionality remains intact
- 8. Rebuild and redeploy your application
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-41845 — 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-2026-41845 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