CVE-2017-15717
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 · uneditedA flaw in the way URLs are escaped and encoded in the org.apache.sling.xss.impl.XSSAPIImpl#getValidHref and org.apache.sling.xss.impl.XSSFilterImpl#isValidHref allows special crafted URLs to pass as valid, although they carry XSS payloads. The affected versions are Apache Sling XSS Protection API 1.0.4 to 1.0.18, Apache Sling XSS Protection API Compat 1.1.0 and Apache Sling XSS Protection API 2.0.0.
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 confidenceA flaw in Apache Sling's XSS protection library allows XSS payloads to bypass URL validation. The getValidHref and isValidHref methods in XSSAPIImpl and XSSFilterImpl improperly escape or encode URLs, permitting specially crafted malicious URLs to pass validation checks.
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> 1.0.4, <= 1.0.18= 2.0.0= 1.1.0CVSS 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 Apache Sling XSS Protection library presenceSearch for JAR files or Maven/Gradle dependencies containing 'sling.xss' or 'org.apache.sling.xss' in your application dependencies or lib folderAffected if The library is present in the environment
-
Determine installed version of Apache Sling Xss Protection ApiCheck the manifest file (MANIFEST.MF) inside the xss JAR, or inspect your dependency management tool (Maven pom.xml, Gradle build.gradle) for the version of artifact 'org.apache.sling:sling.xss.api' or 'org.apache.sling.xss:org.apache.sling.xss.api'Affected if Version is 1.0.5 through 1.0.18 inclusive, or exactly 2.0.0, or exactly 1.1.0 (compat version)
-
Check for XssAPIImpl or XssFilterImpl usageSearch codebase for imports and references to classes 'org.apache.sling.xss.XSSAPIImpl' or 'org.apache.sling.xss.XSSFilterImpl', and specifically look for calls to methods 'getValidHref' or 'isValidHref'Affected if These classes and methods are being called in your code
-
Inspect how URLs are being validatedReview code paths that pass user-supplied or external URLs to getValidHref or isValidHref methods to determine if the vulnerability is reachable with your current configurationAffected if URLs from untrusted sources are passed to these validation methods
You are affected if the Apache Sling XSS Protection library is present AND its version falls within 1.0.5-1.0.18, 1.1.0, or 2.0.0 AND your code uses getValidHref or isValidHref to validate URLs from untrusted sources.
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 Apache Sling XSS Protection API to a version beyond the affected releases (1.0.18, 1.1.0, 2.0.0). Review any code paths using these validation methods for potential past exploitation.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing5.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,752.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-15717 — 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-2017-15717 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