CVE-2015-0492
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 · uneditedUnspecified vulnerability in Oracle Java SE 7u76 and 8u40, and JavaFX 2.2.76, allows remote attackers to affect confidentiality, integrity, and availability via unknown vectors, a different vulnerability than CVE-2015-0484.
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 confidenceOracle Java SE vulnerability (CVE-2015-0492) affecting versions 7u76 and 8u40, and JavaFX 2.2.76, with unspecified attack vectors allowing remote attackers to impact confidentiality, integrity, and availability. This is distinct from CVE-2015-0484.
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= 13.2= 11= 2.2.76= 1.5.0= 1.6.0= 1.7.0= 1.8.0= 1.5.0= 1.6.0= 1.7.0= 1.8.0CVSS 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
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
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 if Java is installedRun 'java -version' in terminal or check for java packages using your system package manager (rpm -qa | grep -i java on RHEL/SUSE, dpkg -l on Debian)Affected if No Java installation is found - not affected. If Java is present, proceed to version check.
-
Determine installed Java versionRun 'java -version' and capture the full version output. For JDK, also check 'javac -version'. On systems with multiple Java installations, use 'update-alternatives --list java' to find all paths and check each.Affected if If version is 1.5.0, 1.6.0, 1.7.0, or 1.8.0 before 7u76/8u40 patches, or if version matches exactly 7u76 or 8u40, then affected.
-
Check JavaFX installation and versionLook for javafx or javafx2 packages via system package manager, or check for javafx jars in the Java installation directory (commonly in lib/jfx.jar or similar). Run 'java -jar' on any javafx application if available.Affected if If JavaFX version is exactly 2.2.76, then affected.
-
Identify specific update build numberExamine the full version string from 'java -version' output which includes the update number (e.g., 1.7.0_76-b13 or 1.8.0_40-b33). For Java 7, look for 1.7.0_uNN; for Java 8, look for 1.8.0_uNN.Affected if If Java 7 version is below _76 (e.g., 1.7.0_75) or exactly _76, affected. If Java 8 version is at or below 1.8.0_40, affected.
User is affected if Java JDK or JRE versions 1.5.0, 1.6.0, 1.7.0, or 1.8.0 are installed, particularly if Java 7 is at u76 or below, Java 8 is at u40 or below, or JavaFX 2.2.76 is present.
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 dataApply Oracle's Java SE patch for versions 7u76/8u40 and JavaFX 2.2.76, or upgrade to a patched version. Consider disabling Java browser plugins until patching is complete given the critical severity.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2015-0492 — 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-2015-0492 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