Spring FrameworkFramework / library · VMware
CVE-2026-41846
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 applications which accept user-supplied values in the cssClass, cssErrorClass, or cssStyle attributes of JSP form tags allow arbitrary HTML/JavaScript code injection, 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 confidenceThis is a cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in Spring MVC's JSP form tags where the cssClass, cssErrorClass, and cssStyle attributes fail to sanitize user-supplied input, allowing attackers to inject arbitrary HTML or JavaScript code that executes in victims' browsers.
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
- 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 Spring Framework versionLocate the spring-core or spring-webmvc JAR file in your application's classpath (e.g., in WEB-INF/lib or build dependencies) and check the filename for the version number, or run 'mvn dependency:tree' and look for spring-framework.version, or inspect the MANIFEST.MF inside the JAR file.Affected if The 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 6.1.18.1, or 7.0.0 to 7.0.7.1
-
Confirm JSP view usageSearch your source code for JSP files (/*.jsp) and look for imports of Spring's tag library: '<%@ taglib prefix="form" uri="http://www.springframework.org/tags/form" %>' or similar Spring form tag declarations.Affected if JSP files using Spring's form tags are present in the application.
-
Inspect for dynamic cssClass, cssErrorClass, or cssStyle usageSearch JSP files for occurrences of 'cssClass=', 'cssErrorClass=', or 'cssStyle=' within form: tags. Examine whether the assigned values come from model attributes, request parameters, or other user-controlled sources (look for ${...} or <form:xxx> bindings pointing to user data).Affected if These attributes are being set with dynamic values (${}, Spring expression language, or bound to form backing bean properties that derive from user input).
Your application is affected if it runs a vulnerable Spring Framework version AND uses JSP form tags with dynamic, user-supplied input assigned to cssClass, cssErrorClass, or cssStyle attributes.
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 a patched version (7.0.8+, 6.2.19+, 6.1.28+, or 5.3.49+) or implement strict input validation on any user-provided values passed to these JSP form tag attributes.
5.3.49 / 6.1.28 / 6.2.18.1 / 7.0.7.1 (minimum fixed version depending on your branch)
- Upgrade Spring Framework to version 5.3.49 or later for 5.3.x users
- Upgrade Spring Framework to version 6.1.28 or later for 6.1.x users
- Upgrade Spring Framework to version 6.2.18.1 or later for 6.2.x users
- Upgrade Spring Framework to version 7.0.7.1 or later for 7.0.x users
- If using Maven, update the spring-core (or spring-webmvc) dependency version in pom.xml to the appropriate fixed version
- After upgrading, verify the application compiles and test thoroughly to ensure the XSS protection in JSP form tags now properly sanitizes cssClass, cssErrorClass, and cssStyle attributes
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Fix this in Spring Framework
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing5.0 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 $4,464.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-41846 — 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-2026-41846 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