Tc ServerApplication · VMware
CVE-2011-0527
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 · uneditedVMware vFabric tc Server (aka SpringSource tc Server) 2.0.x before 2.0.6.RELEASE and 2.1.x before 2.1.2.RELEASE accepts obfuscated passwords during JMX authentication, which makes it easier for context-dependent attackers to obtain access by leveraging an ability to read stored passwords.
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 confidenceVMware vFabric tc Server (SpringSource tc Server) 2.0.x before 2.0.6.RELEASE and 2.1.x before 2.1.2.RELEASE accepts obfuscated passwords during JMX authentication. Attackers who can read stored password files can use the obfuscated version to authenticate to JMX without needing to crack the password.
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
Tc ServerApplication
= 2.0.0= 2.0.1= 2.0.2= 2.0.3= 2.0.4= 2.0.5= 2.1.0= 2.1.1CVSS 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
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/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 tc Server installation pathLocate the tc Server installation directory, typically found under the VMware vFabric or SpringSource directory structure. Check for the 'RELEASE' file or version properties that contain the exact version number.Affected if The installed version is 2.0.0 through 2.0.5, or 2.1.0 through 2.1.1.
-
Determine installed version numberRead the version file or properties in the tc Server installation. Common locations include a RELEASE file in the root directory or version properties in conf/ or lib/ folders.Affected if The version starts with 2.0.0, 2.0.1, 2.0.2, 2.0.3, 2.0.4, 2.0.5, 2.1.0, or 2.1.1.
-
Verify JMX is enabledInspect the conf/server.xml or conf/context.xml files for JMX connector configuration. Check for org.apache.catalina.mbeans.ServerMBean or similar JMX-related elements.Affected if JMX remote management is configured and enabled on the tc Server instance.
-
Locate JMX password fileSearch for password-related configuration files in the conf/ directory, such as jmxremote.password, tomcat-users.xml, or similar files that store credentials for JMX access.Affected if A password file exists and contains obfuscated passwords that could be used directly for JMX authentication.
You are affected if your tc Server version is between 2.0.0 and 2.0.5 or between 2.1.0 and 2.1.1, and JMX with password-based authentication is enabled.
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.
From vendor dataUpgrade to tc Server 2.0.6.RELEASE, 2.1.2.RELEASE or later. Additionally, restrict access to password storage files to prevent credential theft.
Fix this in Tc Server
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 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 $5,888.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2011-0527 — 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-2011-0527 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