VulnerabilityPublished 7 May 2026Updated 15 Jul 2026

CVE-2026-40981: Spring Cloud Config · Insecure Direct Object Reference

Affects Spring Cloud ConfigSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High · fixed in 5.0.3 : patch Spring Cloud Config soon.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 37% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 5.0.3, 4.3.3, 4.2.7 +2

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: None
Availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 7 May 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 30 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Upgrade to a fixed release listed under Affected software.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
SpringSpring Cloud Config	Affected >=5.0.0 <5.0.3	Fixed in 5.0.3
SpringSpring Cloud Config	Affected >=4.3.0 <4.3.3	Fixed in 4.3.3
SpringSpring Cloud Config	Affected >=4.2.0 <4.2.7	Fixed in 4.2.7
SpringSpring Cloud Config	Affected >=4.1.0 <4.1.10	Fixed in 4.1.10
SpringSpring Cloud Config	Affected >=3.1.0 <3.1.14	Fixed in 3.1.14
Mavenorg.springframework.cloud/spring-cloud-config`pkg:maven/org.springframework.cloud/spring-cloud-config`Other threats	Affected 3.1.0 – 5.0.0 5 affected builds	Fixed in–

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

Patches are available and should be applied to upgrade affected Spring Cloud Config versions to the fixed releases: 3.1.14 or later (Enterprise Support Only), 4.1.10 or later (Enterprise Support Only), 4.2.7 or later (Enterprise Support Only), 4.3.3 or later, and 5.0.3 or later. Since this is a cloud-hosted service, the vendor typically manages remediation server-side. Users should consult the vendor advisory (https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-40981) for detailed patching instructions and confirm that their environment is updated accordingly.

Description

When using Google Secrets Manager as a backend for the Spring Cloud Config server a client can craft a request to the config server potentially exposing secrets from unintended GCP projects. Spring Cloud Config 3.1.x: affected from 3.1.0 through 3.1.13 (inclusive); upgrade to 3.1.14 or greater (Enterprise Support Only). Spring Cloud Config 4.1.x: affected from 4.1.0 through 4.1.9 (inclusive); upgrade to 4.1.10 or greater (Enterprise Support Only). Spring Cloud Config 4.2.x: affected from 4.2.0 through 4.2.6 (inclusive); upgrade to 4.2.7 or greater (Enterprise Support Only). Spring Cloud Config 4.3.x: affected from 4.3.0 through 4.3.2 (inclusive); upgrade to 4.3.3 or greater. Spring Cloud Config 5.0.x: affected from 5.0.0 through 5.0.2 (inclusive); upgrade to 5.0.3 or greater.

Impact

Successful exploitation allows an unauthenticated attacker to bypass authorization controls and access sensitive secrets from unintended Google Cloud Platform projects via the Spring Cloud Config server. This results in a high confidentiality impact, potentially exposing critical credentials or configuration data. There is no impact on integrity or availability. The vulnerability affects multiple Spring Cloud Config versions across several major releases.

CWE-639Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #24OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The system's authorization functionality does not prevent one user from gaining access to another user's data or record by modifying the key value identifying the data.
Architecture and Design
For each and every data access, ensure that the user has sufficient privilege to access the record that is being requested.
Architecture and Design · Implementation
Make sure that the key that is used in the lookup of a specific user's record is not controllable externally by the user or that any tampering can be detected.
Architecture and Design
Use encryption in order to make it more difficult to guess other legitimate values of the key or associate a digital signature with the key so that the server can verify that there has been no tampering.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Access Control (opens in a new tab)
Authorization Testing Automation (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Site Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Insecure Direct Object Reference Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V4.1.2 (opens in a new tab)
V4.2.1 (opens in a new tab)
V8.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-1220Insufficient Granularity of Access Control (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product implements access controls via a policy or other feature with the intention to disable or restrict accesses (reads and/or writes) to assets in a system from untrusted agents. However, implemented access controls lack the required granularity
Architecture and Design · Implementation · Testing
Access-control-policy protections must be reviewed for design inconsistency and common weaknesses.; Access-control-policy definition and programming flow must be tested in pre-silicon, post-silicon testing.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Docker Security (opens in a new tab)
Third Party Javascript Management (opens in a new tab)
Virtual Patching (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.4.4 (opens in a new tab)
V1.4.5 (opens in a new tab)
V1.10.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs (opens in a new tab)
Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 15 Jul 2026, 09:13 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-639, CWE-1220

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats