CVE-2017-16111
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 · uneditedThe content module is a module to parse HTTP Content-* headers. It is used by the hapijs framework to provide this functionality. The module is vulnerable to regular expression denial of service when passed a specifically crafted Content-Type or Content-Disposition header.
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 confidenceThe content npm module used by the hapi.js framework contains a regular expression denial of service (ReDoS) vulnerability. Attackers can trigger the vulnerability by sending specifically crafted Content-Type or Content-Disposition HTTP headers containing malicious regex patterns that cause excessive backtracking, leading to service unavailability.
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<= 3.0.5CVSS 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
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
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 version of the content npm moduleRun 'npm list content' in your project directory to see the installed version, or inspect your package-lock.json file for the 'content' package versionAffected if The installed version is 3.0.5 or lower
-
Check if hapi.js is in use and its content dependencyRun 'npm list hapi' and examine the dependency tree to see if content is resolved as a dependency. You can also check your package.json for hapi or @hapi/hapi dependenciesAffected if hapi.js or @hapi/hapi is installed and depends on a vulnerable version of content
-
Verify the Content-Type header processing pathInspect your application code and HTTP server configuration to determine if the content module is used to parse incoming Content-Type or Content-Disposition headers from HTTP requestsAffected if Your application uses the content module to process Content-Type or Content-Disposition headers from untrusted HTTP requests
-
Check for direct usage of the content moduleSearch your codebase for 'require("content")' or 'import from "content"' statements to see if the module is directly imported and usedAffected if The content module is directly required or imported in your application code
Your environment is affected if you have the content npm module at version 3.0.5 or lower, or use hapi.js with this vulnerable content dependency, and your application processes Content-Type or Content-Disposition headers using the content module.
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 dataUpdate the content module to a patched version that addresses the ReDoS vulnerability, or upgrade hapi.js to a version that includes the fixed dependency. Implement request timeout protections at the application or network level as a defense-in-depth measure.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation1.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $1,376.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-16111 — 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-2017-16111 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