Jboss Application ServerApplication · Redhat
CVE-2012-1094
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 AS 7 prior to 7.1.1 and mod_cluster do not handle default hostname in the same way, which can cause the excluded-contexts list to be mismatched and the root context to be exposed.
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 · moderate confidenceJBoss AS 7 prior to 7.1.1 and mod_cluster handle default hostnames differently, creating a mismatch in the excluded-contexts configuration list that can allow attackers to access the root context of protected applications.
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
Jboss Application ServerApplication
>= 7.0.0, < 7.1.1CVSS 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
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/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.
-
Check JBoss AS versionRun 'jboss-cli.sh --version' or inspect the 'jboss-modules.jar' version in the installation directory, or check the 'product.conf' file in the 'bin' directoryAffected if The installed version is 7.0.0 or later but earlier than 7.1.1
-
Verify mod_cluster is in useCheck if mod_cluster is configured by looking for 'mod_cluster' related configuration files or modules in the JBoss installation, typically in the 'standalone/configuration' directoryAffected if mod_cluster is enabled and handling requests
-
Inspect excluded-contexts configurationReview the mod_cluster manager configuration for the 'excluded-contexts' setting, typically found in the mod_cluster subsystem in 'standalone.xml' or 'domain.xml'Affected if The excluded-contexts list does not explicitly exclude the default hostname or root context entries consistently with JBoss AS configuration
-
Check hostname alignmentCompare the default hostname configuration in JBoss AS (in the 'virtual-server' configuration) with the hostname handling in mod_cluster to identify mismatchesAffected if The default hostname in JBoss AS differs from what mod_cluster expects in its excluded-contexts handling, creating an inconsistency
A user is affected if they are running JBoss AS version 7.0.0 through 7.1.0 with mod_cluster enabled and have a mismatch between JBoss AS default hostname handling and mod_cluster excluded-contexts configuration.
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 data7.1.1
Upgrade JBoss AS to version 7.1.1 or later, or ensure consistent hostname configuration between JBoss AS and mod_cluster to align excluded-contexts handling.
Fix this in Jboss Application Server
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-1094 — 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-2012-1094 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