CVE-2017-2589
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 · uneditedIt was discovered that the hawtio servlet 1.4 uses a single HttpClient instance to proxy requests with a persistent cookie store (cookies are stored locally and are not passed between the client and the end URL) which means all clients using that proxy are sharing the same cookies.
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 confidenceThe hawtio servlet 1.4 uses a single shared HttpClient instance with a persistent cookie store for proxying requests. Cookies are stored locally and not passed between the client and the end URL, causing all users of the proxy to share the same cookies. This can lead to session hijacking or cross-user cookie leakage.
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= 6.3= 1.4.0CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/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 hawtio installation and versionLocate the hawtio WAR file or JAR bundle and check its version metadata. Common locations include application deployment directories or lib folders within JBoss Fuse. Use 'jar -tf' on WAR files or inspect MANIFEST.MF for version information.Affected if The installed version is exactly 1.4.0 for Hawt Hawtio or version 6.3 for Red Hat JBoss Fuse
-
Confirm proxy functionality is enabledInspect the hawtio configuration files or web.xml descriptor for proxy-related servlet mappings or proxy servlet initialization parameters. Look for entries that configure proxying functionality.Affected if Proxy servlet or proxy module is explicitly configured and active in the deployment
-
Verify shared HttpClient with cookie store existsExamine the hawtio source or configuration for HttpClient instantiation. Search for shared HttpClient bean definitions or singleton patterns that reuse the same client instance across requests. Check for cookiePolicy or cookieStore settings.Affected if A single HttpClient instance is shared across requests with cookie store persistence enabled
-
Check for cookie store persistence configurationInspect configuration files or Java code for CookieStore or equivalent persistent cookie handling configuration. Look for default cookie store implementations that persist cookies between requests.Affected if Persistent cookie storage is enabled and cookies are retained beyond individual request sessions
A user is affected if running hawtio version 1.4.0 or JBoss Fuse 6.3 with the proxy functionality enabled and a shared HttpClient using persistent cookie storage configured.
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.
dbcve · scopedIsolate cookie handling per-request by creating separate cookie stores or disabling the persistent cookie store entirely. If the proxy functionality is not essential, disable it. Upgrade to a patched version if available.
Hawtio 2.4.0 or later (for JBoss Fuse 6.3 apply corresponding RHSA errata)
- 1. Identify the current version of Hawtio in your JBoss Fuse 6.3 installation by examining the war file or the OSGi bundle
- 2. Update the Hawtio web console to version 2.x (such as 2.4.0 or later) which contains the fix for CVE-2017-2589
- 3. For JBoss Fuse 6.3, apply the Red Hat Security Advisory (RHSA) that addresses CVE-2017-2589 - this typically involves running 'patch' command or updating via JBoss Fuse patching mechanism
- 4. After applying the update, restart the JBoss Fuse container to ensure the new Hawtio version is loaded
- 5. Verify the fix by checking that the proxy servlet now creates separate HttpClient instances per request rather than sharing a single instance with persistent cookie store
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-2589 — 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-2017-2589 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