CxfApplication · Apache
CVE-2026-50634
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 · uneditedA vulnerability in Apache CXF's JwsJsonContainerRequestFilter can be exploited to cause CXF to process metadata that was not authenticated by the accepted signature. This can bypass the application's assumption that accepted `Content-Type` or protected HTTP-header metadata came from a verified signature entry, and may steer downstream JAX-RS entity parsing or signed-header consistency checks. Users are recommended to upgrade to versions 4.2.2 or 4.1.7 or 3.6.12, 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 confidenceThe JwsJsonContainerRequestFilter in Apache CXF fails to properly validate that metadata (Content-Type headers and protected HTTP headers) is actually authenticated by the accepted JWS signature. This allows an attacker to inject unverified metadata that downstream JAX-RS components may trust for entity parsing or security decisions, bypassing the signature verification guarantee.
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
CxfApplication
< 4.1.7>= 4.2.0, < 4.2.2CVSS 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
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/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 Apache CXF versionInspect your project's dependency management (pom.xml, build.gradle, or the CXF JAR files in WEB-INF/lib) to determine the exact version of Apache CXF being usedAffected if The version is less than 4.1.7, or between 4.2.0 and 4.2.2 (exclusive)
-
Locate JwsJsonContainerRequestFilter usageSearch your codebase and configuration files for references to JwsJsonContainerRequestFilter class or any JAX-RS request filter implementations handling JWS/JSON web tokensAffected if JwsJsonContainerRequestFilter is deployed and actively processing requests
-
Verify Content-Type header handlingExamine how the filter processes Content-Type headers in incoming requests - inspect the filter code or configuration to see if Content-Type is validated against the signed JWS payloadAffected if Content-Type header values are accepted without verification that they match what the JWS signature covers
-
Check protected HTTP headers configurationInspect the filter's configuration to identify which HTTP headers are declared as protected/signed versus which are accepted as unsigned metadataAffected if Unsigned or unprotected HTTP headers are being forwarded to downstream JAX-RS components without signature validation
You are affected if your Apache CXF version falls within the vulnerable range AND JwsJsonContainerRequestFilter is processing requests with unsigned Content-Type or HTTP headers that bypass JWS signature validation.
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 · scoped4.1.74.2.2
Upgrade Apache CXF to version 4.2.2 or 4.1.7 to resolve the signature bypass in JwsJsonContainerRequestFilter, then verify that Content-Type and signed HTTP headers are properly rejected when their signatures do not cover them.
4.2.2 or 4.1.7
- Locate Apache CXF dependency declarations in your project's build configuration (e.g., pom.xml, build.gradle, requirements.txt)
- Update the CXF version to 4.2.2 (for CXF 4.x users) or 4.1.7 (for CXF 4.1.x users)
- Verify no other conflicting CXF version declarations exist in transitive dependencies
- Rebuild the project to incorporate the updated dependency
- Run existing tests, particularly any security or signature verification tests, to confirm the fix works correctly
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Fix this in Cxf
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,520.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-50634 — 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-2026-50634 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