CVE-2026-44417
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-2025-48913: Apache CXF: Untrusted JMS configuration can lead to RCE was not complete, meaning that another path in the code might lead to code execution capabilities, if untrusted users are allowed to configure JMS for Apache CXF. Users are recommended to upgrade to versions 4.2.1, 4.1.6 or 3.6.11, which fix this issue.
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 an incomplete fix for CVE-2025-48913. The original vulnerability allowed Remote Code Execution (RCE) through untrusted JMS configuration in Apache CXF. Although a fix was applied, another code path still exists that can lead to code execution if untrusted users are permitted to configure JMS for Apache CXF.
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< 3.6.11>= 4.0.0, < 4.1.6= 4.2.0CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/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 CXF versionLocate the CXF jar files (typically in WEB-INF/lib or lib directory) and check the version from filename or MANIFEST.MF inside cxf-core.jar. Common paths:Tomcat: webapp/WEB-INF/lib/, Jetty: webapp/WEB-INF/lib/, Spring Boot:BOOT-INF/lib/ or lib/. Run: ls -la *cxf*.jar or jar tf cxf-core.jar | grep MANIFESTAffected if Version is less than 3.6.11, OR between 4.0.0 and 4.1.5 inclusive, OR equal to 4.2.0
-
Determine if JMS transport is configuredSearch for JMS configuration in CXF configuration files. Check: cxf.xml, beans.xml, spring-context.xml, or any @Bean definitions creating JMS transport. Search for: javax.jms, jms:conduit, jms:destination, JMSConfigFeature, JMSConfiguration. Run: grep -r "jms:" . or grep -r "JMSConfiguration" .Affected if JMS transport or JMSConfiguration is defined in any CXF configuration file
-
Verify JMS configuration allows user-controlled parametersReview JMS configuration for parameters that accept user input: connectionFactory, destination, initialContextFactory, providerURL. Check if these are hardcoded or sourced from untrusted input (request parameters, external config not controlled by admin). Examine the Spring bean definitions or CXF JMS policy configuration.Affected if JMS connection parameters (connectionFactory, destination, providerURL, initialContextFactory) can be influenced by untrusted or externally-supplied values
-
Check access control on JMS configuration endpointsIdentify if there are admin REST APIs, SOAP services, or management interfaces that allow JMS settings to be modified. Review role-based access controls. Check if unauthenticated or low-privilege users can modify JMS configuration.Affected if Untrusted or low-privilege users can modify JMS settings through any configuration interface or API
You are affected if your Apache CXF version falls within the vulnerable ranges AND JMS transport is configured with parameters that can be influenced by untrusted users.
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 · scoped3.6.114.1.6
Upgrade Apache CXF to versions 4.2.1, 4.1.6, or 3.6.11 which contain the complete fix. Additionally, restrict JMS configuration permissions to trusted users only.
3.6.11, 4.1.6, or 4.2.1 (choose the appropriate version based on your current major version branch)
- Identify the current Apache CXF version in use by checking project dependencies or CXF library files
- Upgrade Apache CXF to version 3.6.11, 4.1.6, or 4.2.1 depending on your current major version branch
- Update the dependency in your build configuration (Maven pom.xml, Gradle build.gradle, or other dependency management system)
- Rebuild and redeploy the application
- Verify that JMS functionality continues to work correctly after the upgrade
- Ensure that untrusted users are not permitted to configure JMS settings until the upgrade is applied
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- 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-2026-44417 — 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-2026-44417 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