CVE-2017-1583
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 (IBM Liberty for Java for Bluemix 3.13)could allow a remote attacker to obtain sensitive information caused by improper error handling by MyFaces in JSF.
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 (Liberty for Java for Bluemix 3.13) contains a vulnerability in the MyFaces implementation within JavaServer Faces (JSF) where improper error handling allows remote attackers to obtain sensitive information via specially crafted requests that trigger verbose error messages.
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= 3.13CVSS 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:3.0/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.
-
Identify the installed Liberty for Java versionCheck the version of IBM Liberty for Java by inspecting the installation directory or running: java -jar wlp-installDir/lib/wlp-version.jar or checking the manifest in the installation filesAffected if The installed version is exactly 3.13 (Liberty for Java for Bluemix 3.13)
-
Determine if JSF (JavaServer Faces) is enabledReview the server.xml configuration file (typically in ${server.config.dir}/server.xml) and look for jsf-2.2 or myfaces features in the <featureManager> sectionAffected if JSF/MyFaces feature is enabled in the Liberty profile configuration
-
Inspect error page configurationCheck the web.xml deployment descriptor (in WEB-INF/web.xml) and server.xml for <error-page> mappings. Also verify the com.ibm.ws.webcontainer.invokeFilterErrorsForAsync attribute settingAffected if Error pages are not properly configured or are set to display verbose stack traces
-
Check custom error handling implementationSearch for custom error handlers or exception mappers in the application code that may override default JSF error handlingAffected if Custom error handlers exist but do not suppress sensitive information from verbose error messages
A user is affected if they are running IBM Liberty for Java version 3.13 with JSF/MyFaces enabled and the error handling configuration allows verbose error messages to be displayed to users.
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 IBM-provided security patches for WebSphere/Liberty for Java and ensure proper error handling configuration is in place to prevent information disclosure through error messages.
- Consultation3.0 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 $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-1583 — 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-2017-1583 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