CVE-2011-2196
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 · uneditedjboss-seam.jar in the JBoss Seam 2 framework 2.2.x and earlier, as distributed in Red Hat JBoss Enterprise SOA Platform 4.3.0.CP05 and 5.1.0; JBoss Enterprise Application Platform (aka JBoss EAP or JBEAP) 4.3.0, 4.3.0.CP09, and 5.1.1; and JBoss Enterprise Web Platform 5.1.1, does not properly restrict use of Expression Language (EL) statements in FacesMessages during page exception handling, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary Java code via a crafted URL to an application. NOTE: this vulnerability exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2011-1484.
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 confidenceEL injection vulnerability in JBoss Seam 2 framework's FacesMessages component. During page exception handling, the component fails to properly sanitize Expression Language statements, allowing remote attackers to inject and execute arbitrary Java code via crafted URLs. This is an incomplete fix for the prior CVE-2011-1484.
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= 4.3.0= 5.1.1= 4.3.0= 5.1.0= 5.1.1<= 2.2.2= 2.0.0= 2.0.1= 2.0.2= 2.0.3= 2.1.0= 2.1.1= 2.1.2= 2.2.0= 2.2.1CVSS 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
- M
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
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 JBoss Seam 2 framework versionLocate the jboss-seam.jar file in your application deployment (typically in WEB-INF/lib or as part of the server's lib directory) and check the MANIFEST.MF file inside the JAR for the Implementation-Version attribute. Alternatively, check your build configuration (pom.xml, build.gradle, or dependency management) for the jboss-seam version declaration.Affected if The installed jboss-seam version is 2.0.0, 2.0.1, 2.0.2, 2.0.3, 2.1.0, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.2.0, 2.2.1, or any version <= 2.2.2 (note: 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 are NOT fixed).
-
Identify JBoss Enterprise Application Platform versionCheck the version of your JBoss EAP installation by locating the jboss-as-server or jboss-eap server release manifest or version file, typically found in the server's root directory (e.g., run 'grep -r "jboss-eap"' in the installation directory or check the version string in the startup logs).Affected if The JBoss EAP version is exactly 4.3.0 or 5.1.1.
-
Identify JBoss Enterprise SOA Platform versionCheck the version of your JBoss SOA-P installation by examining the installation directory, startup logs, or release notes files included with the distribution.Affected if The JBoss SOA Platform version is exactly 4.3.0 or 5.1.0.
-
Identify JBoss Enterprise Web Platform versionCheck the version of your JBoss EWP installation by examining the installation directory, startup logs, or release notes files included with the distribution.Affected if The JBoss EWP version is exactly 5.1.1.
-
Verify if FacesMessages is used in exception handlingSearch your application code and configuration files (including pages.xml, components.xml, web.xml) for references to the FacesMessages component and any exception handler configurations that render error pages or exception messages. Look for patterns like 'FacesMessages.instance()' or custom exception handler classes that use FacesMessages.Affected if Your application uses FacesMessages component in exception handling code paths and displays exception messages to users via JSF pages.
You are affected if your environment runs any of the listed JBoss Seam 2 versions (<=2.2.2, including 2.2.1), JBoss EAP 4.3.0/5.1.1, JBoss SOA Platform 4.3.0/5.1.0, or JBoss EWP 5.1.1, AND uses the FacesMessages component in exception handling that renders user-facing error pages.
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 JBoss Seam to a patched version (2.2.1 or later) or update to JBoss EAP versions that include the complete fix. Apply input validation filters for FacesMessages and disable dynamic EL evaluation in exception handlers if upgrading is not immediately feasible.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2011-2196 — 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-2011-2196 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