CVE-2017-1503
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 · uneditedIBM WebSphere Application Server 7.0, 8.0, 8.5, and 9.0 is vulnerable to HTTP response splitting attacks. A remote attacker could exploit this vulnerability using specially-crafted URL to cause the server to return a split response, once the URL is clicked. This would allow the attacker to perform further attacks, such as Web cache poisoning, cross-site scripting, and possibly obtain sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 129578.
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 confidenceIBM WebSphere Application Server versions 7.0 through 9.0 contains an HTTP response splitting vulnerability due to insufficient input validation in URL handling. A remote attacker can exploit this by crafting malicious URLs containing CRLF injection sequences, causing the server to return split HTTP responses. This enables secondary attacks including web cache poisoning, cross-site scripting (XSS), and potential sensitive information disclosure.
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= 7.0= 8.0= 8.5= 9.0CVSS 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
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/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 WebSphere Application Server installationRun the version command or check the install location: for traditional WebSphere, use 'aboutWebSphereName' MBean or check the install directory for version.info file. For Liberty, check the server.xml or run 'server version' command.Affected if The installed version matches 7.0, 8.0, 8.5, or 9.0 exactly as listed in the affected versions.
-
Confirm HTTP channel is activeCheck if the WebSphere HTTP transport channel is enabled by examining the server's endpoint configuration in the admin console under Servers > Server Types > WebSphere application servers > [server] > Web container settings > Web container transport chains, or by reviewing server.xml for active HTTP or HTTPS connectors.Affected if The HTTP channel is listening and processing incoming requests, making the URL handling vulnerable to CRLF injection.
-
Review HTTP request loggingInspect WebSphere access logs (typically in <profile>/logs/<server>/http_access.log or using the runtime MBean RequestMetrics) for any entries containing literal CRLF sequences (\r\n) or encoded newlines in request URLs.Affected if Malicious CRLF sequences are present in logged HTTP requests, indicating active exploitation attempts or vulnerable URL parsing.
-
Check for web cache poisoning indicatorsExamine the HTTP response headers in server logs or capture live responses using a tool like tcpdump or a browser developer tool. Look for duplicate Set-Cookie or Location headers that could indicate response splitting has occurred.Affected if HTTP responses contain unexpected duplicate headers or responses appear split, with a second response starting with 'HTTP/'.
-
Inspect input validation configurationReview any custom servlet filters or security constraints in web.xml and ibm-web-bnd.xml that may provide input validation on incoming requests. Also check the WebSphere global security settings for URL protection rules.Affected if No input validation or sanitization is applied to incoming URLs before processing, leaving the CRLF injection vector open.
A user is affected if they are running WebSphere Application Server versions 7.0, 8.0, 8.5, or 9.0 with the HTTP channel enabled and unvalidated URL input can reach the server.
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 the appropriate IBM WebSphere Application Server security patch for versions 7.0, 8.0, 8.5, and 9.0 from IBM Fix Central. Validate and sanitize all user-supplied input in HTTP requests to prevent CRLF injection.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $4,304.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-1503 — 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-2017-1503 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