CVE-2026-42779
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 · uneditedThe fix for CVE-2026-41635 was not applied to the 2.1.X and 2.2.X branches. Here was the original issue description: Apache MINA's AbstractIoBuffer.resolveClass() contains two branches, one of them (for static classes or primitive types) does not check the class at all, bypassing the classname allowlist and allowing arbitrary code to be executed. The fix checks if the class is present in the accepted class filter before calling Class.forName(). Affected versions are Apache MINA 2.1.0 <= 2.1.11, and 2.2.0 <= 2.2.6. The problem is resolved in Apache MINA 2.1.12, and 2.2.7 by applying the classname allowlist earlier. Affected are applications using Apache MINA that call IoBuffer.getObject(). Applications using Apache MINA are advised to upgrade.
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 confidenceApache MINA's AbstractIoBuffer.resolveClass() contains a deserialization flaw where one branch (handling static classes or primitive types) completely bypasses the classname allowlist, enabling arbitrary code execution via Class.forName() without validation. This vulnerability was introduced because the fix for CVE-2026-41635 was not applied to the 2.1.X and 2.2.X branches.
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>= 2.1.0, < 2.1.12>= 2.2.0, < 2.2.7CVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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 Apache MINA version in your deploymentCheck your project's dependency management (Maven pom.xml, Gradle build.gradle, or the mina-core.jar MANIFEST.MF file) for the mina-core artifact versionAffected if The version is >= 2.1.0 and < 2.1.12, or >= 2.2.0 and < 2.2.7
-
Confirm MINA IoBuffer deserialization is in useSearch your codebase for usages of IoBuffer.getObject(), IoBuffer.wrap(), or custom ObjectInput/ObjectReader implementations that deserialize IoBuffer payloads from untrusted sourcesAffected if Your application deserializes IoBuffer objects containing arbitrary data from network sources or user input
-
Check if custom class resolution is configuredInspect your IoBuffer configuration and any custom ObjectInput implementations for calls to AbstractIoBuffer.setClassResolver() or similar custom deserialization logicAffected if Custom class resolution is used without an explicit allowlist, allowing the vulnerable code path in resolveClass() to execute
-
Verify Java serialization of IoBuffer occursReview network protocol handlers or message parsers that use IoBuffer.putObject()/getObject() to serialize/deserialize objects, especially with data from external sourcesAffected if Objects are serialized into IoBuffer and retrieved via getObject() from untrusted streams, enabling the bypassed allowlist branch to be triggered
You are affected if your deployed Apache MINA version is 2.1.0-2.1.11 or 2.2.0-2.6 and your application deserializes IoBuffer objects from untrusted sources without additional classname allowlisting.
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 · scoped2.1.122.2.7
Upgrade to Apache MINA 2.1.12 or 2.2.7, or manually apply classname allowlist validation before Class.forName() calls in all branches of AbstractIoBuffer.resolveClass().
Apache MINA 2.1.12 or 2.2.7 (depending on which branch you are on)
- Identify the current Apache MINA version in use by checking project dependencies (e.g., pom.xml for Maven, build.gradle for Gradle)
- If using a 2.1.x version (>= 2.1.0, < 2.1.12), update the dependency to version 2.1.12
- If using a 2.2.x version (>= 2.2.0, < 2.2.7), update the dependency to version 2.2.7
- For Maven, update the version in pom.xml: change <version> to 2.1.12 or 2.2.7 accordingly
- For Gradle, update the version in build.gradle: change the mina-core dependency version to 2.1.12 or 2.2.7
- Rebuild and test the application to verify the upgrade works correctly
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-42779 — 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-2026-42779 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