CVE-2017-15706
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 · uneditedAs part of the fix for bug 61201, the documentation for Apache Tomcat 9.0.0.M22 to 9.0.1, 8.5.16 to 8.5.23, 8.0.45 to 8.0.47 and 7.0.79 to 7.0.82 included an updated description of the search algorithm used by the CGI Servlet to identify which script to execute. The update was not correct. As a result, some scripts may have failed to execute as expected and other scripts may have been executed unexpectedly. Note that the behaviour of the CGI servlet has remained unchanged in this regard. It is only the documentation of the behaviour that was wrong and has been corrected.
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 confidenceThis is a documentation-only issue in Apache Tomcat's CGI Servlet. The documentation describing the script search algorithm was incorrect, but the actual servlet code behavior remained unchanged. The incorrect documentation may have caused users to misconfigure their setups, leading to some scripts failing to execute or executing unexpectedly.
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>= 7.0.79, <= 7.0.82>= 8.0.45, <= 8.0.47>= 8.5.16, <= 8.5.23= 9.0.0= 9.0.1CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/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 Apache Tomcat versionCheck the server info or the RELEASE-NOTES file in the Tomcat installation directory, or query the server's HTTP response headers if exposed.Affected if The installed version falls within 7.0.79-7.0.82, 8.0.45-8.0.47, 8.5.16-8.5.23, 9.0.0, or 9.0.1
-
Confirm CGI Servlet is in useLook for the CGI servlet configuration in web.xml (global or application-specific) or check for the presence of the CGI servlet class (org.apache.catalina.servlets.CGIServlet) in the deployment.Affected if The CGI Servlet is configured and enabled in the Tomcat environment
-
Examine CGI servlet configuration for executable path settingsReview the CGI servlet init parameters in web.xml, specifically 'executable' and 'commandPrefix' parameters, as the incorrect documentation may have led to misconfiguration of script execution paths.Affected if The configuration relies on assumptions about the script search algorithm that differed from actual behavior (the documentation described a different search order than what the code performed)
-
Verify script file location and naming against actual code behaviorTest CGI script execution directly or review logs to confirm scripts in the cgi-root directory are found as expected; the documentation incorrectly implied a different file resolution order.Affected if Scripts fail to execute or execute unexpectedly due to mismatched expectations about where Tomcat searches for scripts
A user is affected if they run an affected Tomcat version with CGI Servlet enabled AND their configuration was based on the incorrect documentation, potentially causing script execution failures or unexpected behavior.
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 dataNo code fix is required. Users should consult the corrected documentation (post-fix versions) to understand the actual CGI Servlet behavior and verify their configurations are correct.
- Consultation1.0 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 $1,200.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-15706 — 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 sources- www.securityfocus.com
- lists.apache.org
- lists.apache.org
- lists.apache.org
- lists.apache.org
- lists.apache.org
- lists.apache.org
- lists.apache.org
- lists.apache.org
- lists.apache.org
- lists.apache.org
- lists.apache.org
- lists.apache.org
- lists.apache.org
- lists.apache.org
- lists.apache.org
- lists.apache.org
- lists.apache.org
- usn.ubuntu.com
- www.oracle.com
- nvd.nist.gov
Practitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2017-15706 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