CVE-2026-41001: Spring Boot Artemis Embedded Message Broker Local Privilege Escalation
Spring Boot applications using embedded Artemis message brokers face a local privilege-escalation risk when no explicit data directory is configured. The affected versions default to a predictable, fixed path that an attacker with local system access can exploit before the application starts—either by pre-creating the directory or installing a symlink. This allows the attacker to read, modify, or disrupt the message broker's data, potentially compromising application integrity and confidentiality.
Source data · NVD / CISA · public domain
- CVSS
- 3.1 · 5.3 MEDIUM · CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
- Weaknesses (CWE)
- CWE-377
- Affected products
- 0 configuration(s)
- Published / Modified
- 2026-06-11 / 2026-06-23
NVD description (verbatim)
Spring Boot's ArtemisEmbeddedConfigurationFactory uses a fixed, static path for the embedded Artemis message broker's data directory when no explicit path is configured. A local attacker on the same host can pre-create this predictable directory or place a symlink before the application starts. Affected versions: Spring Boot 4.0.0 through 4.0.6; 3.5.0 through 3.5.14; 3.4.0 through 3.4.16; 3.3.0 through 3.3.19; 2.7.0 through 2.7.33.
1 reference(s) · View on NVD →
SEC.co analysis · AI-assisted, reviewed against source
Technical summary
CVE-2026-41001 is a local insecure temporary file handling vulnerability in Spring Boot's ArtemisEmbeddedConfigurationFactory. When the Artemis message broker is embedded and no explicit data directory path is supplied via configuration, the factory uses a hardcoded, predictable default location. An attacker with local user privileges can exploit the race condition or predictability by creating a symlink or directory at that path before the Spring Boot application initializes. This results in Time-of-Check-Time-of-Use (TOCTOU) behavior allowing unauthorized access to or manipulation of the broker's persistent data (CWE-377). The vulnerability affects Spring Boot versions spanning multiple major and minor releases: 4.0.0–4.0.6, 3.5.0–3.5.14, 3.4.0–3.4.16, 3.3.0–3.3.19, and 2.7.0–2.7.33.
Business impact
Organizations relying on embedded Artemis within Spring Boot deployments may face data confidentiality breaches (unauthorized access to message queue data), message integrity violations (tampering with queued messages), and service availability risks (denial of service or corruption forcing restart). Multi-tenant or shared-host environments are particularly exposed. In production systems where message brokers handle sensitive transactional data or cross-application communication, exploitation could cascade into system-wide failures or data leakage events requiring incident response and forensic investigation.
Affected systems
Spring Boot applications using ArtemisEmbeddedConfigurationFactory without an explicitly configured data directory are vulnerable. This affects versions 2.7.0–2.7.33, 3.3.0–3.3.19, 3.4.0–3.4.16, 3.5.0–3.5.14, and 4.0.0–4.0.6. Vulnerability scope is limited to systems where: (1) embedded Artemis is active, (2) no explicit data directory path is provided in configuration, and (3) a local attacker has access to the host. Containerized deployments, Kubernetes clusters, and shared VM/cloud environments are at heightened risk.
Exploitability
Exploitability is straightforward for local attackers. The attack vector is local with low complexity and low privilege requirements (a standard user account suffices). No user interaction is required. An attacker need only create a symlink or directory at the predictable default path before or during application startup. However, attack surface is bounded to authenticated local access—remote exploitation is not possible. CVSS score of 5.3 (MEDIUM) reflects this local-only, low-complexity nature, with modest confidentiality, integrity, and availability impact per the CVSS vector AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L.
Remediation
Update Spring Boot to a patched version addressing this directory handling issue. Additionally, hardening measures include: (1) explicitly configuring a secure, non-predictable data directory path for Artemis in application properties, (2) restricting local filesystem permissions to prevent symlink creation or pre-creation of directories in sensitive paths, (3) running Spring Boot containers with minimal privilege and isolated filesystem namespaces, and (4) monitoring for suspicious symlink or directory creation near expected Artemis data locations.
Patch guidance
Verify the availability of patched Spring Boot releases from the official Spring Boot release notes and security advisories. Apply the earliest patch version available for your currently deployed Spring Boot major/minor version line (e.g., if running 3.5.x, patch to the latest 3.5.z release that addresses this vulnerability). Test patches in a pre-production environment, particularly for message broker functionality and data persistence. If a patch is unavailable for your version, implement the workaround of explicitly configuring the Artemis data directory path in your application configuration until an official patch is available.
Detection guidance
Monitor systems for: (1) symlink creation or unusual filesystem activity in predictable default Artemis data directory paths, (2) Spring Boot application startup failures or errors related to Artemis broker initialization (may indicate directory pre-creation or permission issues introduced by attackers), (3) unexpected ownership or permission changes on Artemis data files, (4) audit logs indicating local user privilege escalation or unauthorized access to message broker data. Log aggregation and file integrity monitoring (FIM) tools are valuable for early detection. Code review of application configuration should verify that Artemis data directories are explicitly set rather than relying on defaults.
Why prioritize this
Although CVSS 5.3 is rated MEDIUM, prioritization should reflect your specific environment. In shared-host, container orchestration, or multi-tenant deployments with untrusted users, this vulnerability rises in priority due to ease of exploitation and potential for lateral movement or data theft. In isolated, single-user, or tightly controlled environments, it remains lower priority. Organizations running embedded Artemis in performance-sensitive message-driven applications should prioritize patching to prevent potential data manipulation or service disruption.
Risk score, explained
CVSS 3.1 score of 5.3 (MEDIUM) is justified by: Attack Vector = Local (no remote attack possible), Access Complexity = Low (predictable path, no special conditions), Privileges Required = Low (standard user account sufficient), User Interaction = None (automatic exploitation possible), Scope = Unchanged (impact confined to vulnerable component), Confidentiality Impact = Low (message data may be read), Integrity Impact = Low (message data may be modified), Availability Impact = Low (service may be disrupted or message broker corrupted). The score would be higher in remote-attack or privilege-escalation scenarios; the local-only attack vector caps the severity despite the ease of exploitation.
Frequently asked questions
If I explicitly configure an Artemis data directory path in my Spring Boot application properties, am I protected?
Yes. Configuring an explicit data directory path bypasses the vulnerable default behavior entirely. Ensure the configured path is owned by the application user with restrictive permissions (e.g., 0700) to prevent symlink attacks or unauthorized access by other local users.
Are Spring Boot versions prior to 2.7.0 affected?
According to the published vulnerability data, affected versions are 2.7.0 and later. Older versions (2.6.x and earlier) should be assessed separately; if they use ArtemisEmbeddedConfigurationFactory with a fixed path, consult Spring Boot security advisories for those versions or consider upgrading.
Does this vulnerability affect Spring Boot if I am not using embedded Artemis?
No. If your application does not use Spring Boot's embedded Artemis message broker (e.g., you use an external Artemis broker or a different message provider), this vulnerability does not apply. Check your application's classpath, Maven/Gradle dependencies, and configuration to confirm whether Artemis is embedded.
Can I mitigate this vulnerability without upgrading Spring Boot?
Partial mitigation is possible: explicitly configure the Artemis data directory path to a secure, non-predictable location and restrict filesystem permissions so local users cannot create symlinks or pre-create directories. However, this is a workaround, not a complete fix. Patching is the recommended long-term remediation.
This analysis is provided for informational purposes to assist security teams in vulnerability assessment and remediation planning. The vulnerability details, affected versions, and CVSS score are sourced from published security bulletins and CVE records. Patch availability, versioning, and deployment timelines should be verified directly with Spring Boot release notes and official Pivotal/VMware security advisories before proceeding with patching. SEC.co and this analysis do not guarantee the completeness or timeliness of patch availability or provide legal liability assurances. Organizations should conduct their own testing and risk assessment in their specific environments. No exploit code or weaponized proof-of-concept is provided; this guidance is intended for defensive and hardening purposes only. Source: NVD (public-domain), retrieved 2026-07-20. Analysis generated by SEC.co (claude-haiku-4-5).
Weaknesses (CWE)
Related vulnerabilities
- CVE-2026-45384MEDIUMArbitrary File Overwrite in bit7z via Symlink Attack
- CVE-2026-49134HIGHCodexBar Privilege Escalation in CLI Installer (Race Condition)
- CVE-2026-49135HIGHCodexBar Insecure Temporary File Handling Allows Local Credential Theft
- CVE-2016-20064MEDIUMWP Vault 0.8.6.6 Arbitrary File Read via Directory Traversal
- CVE-2016-20067MEDIUMWordPress CP Polls CSRF Vulnerability
- CVE-2016-20070MEDIUMPrivilege Escalation & Stored XSS in WordPress Booking Calendar Contact Form 1.0.23
- CVE-2016-20074MEDIUMWordPress Lazy Content Slider CSRF Vulnerability – Patch & Detection Guide
- CVE-2016-20077MEDIUMWordPress Photocart Link Plugin Local File Inclusion Vulnerability