dbcve.org
Experience ManagerApplication · Adobe

CVE-2017-3111

HIGH · 7.5 CVSS v3.0 Published 2017-12-09
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
84/100
Remediation priority · High
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
An issue was discovered in Adobe Experience Manager 6.3, 6.2, 6.1, 6.0. Sensitive tokens are included in http GET requests under certain circumstances.

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 confidence

Adobe Experience Manager versions 6.3, 6.2, 6.1, and 6.0 inadvertently include sensitive authentication tokens in HTTP GET request URLs. This exposes tokens through browser history, server access logs, proxy logs, and referrer headers, potentially allowing unauthorized access to authenticated sessions.

MitigationMigrate affected authentication flows from GET to POST requests and ensure sensitive tokens are transmitted via secure headers or request bodies rather than URL parameters. Review and rotate any potentially exposed tokens.

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
Experience ManagerApplication
Affected:= 6.1.0= 6.2.0

CVSS 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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify the installed Adobe Experience Manager version
    Access the AEM Web Console (usually at /system/console/configMgr) or check the crx-quickstart folder for version.info file. You can also query the JMX console or use the AEM version API endpoint if available in your environment.
    Affected if The installed version is 6.1.0 or 6.2.0 (note: other 6.x versions may also be affected per the advisory)
  2. Review AEM authentication configuration
    Examine the Apache Jackrabbit Oak token configuration and any custom authentication handlers in /system/console/configMgr. Look for authentication-related OSGi configurations that specify token-based or form-based authentication.
    Affected if Authentication uses token-based or form-based login with tokens transmitted via URL parameters
  3. Inspect HTTP access logs for authentication tokens in URLs
    Examine AEM access logs (typically in crx-quickstart/logs/access.log or the configured access log location). Search for request URLs containing sensitive parameters such as 'token', 'sid', 'sling.auth', 'j_username', or similar session identifiers.
    Affected if GET requests contain authentication tokens or session identifiers in the URL query string
  4. Check referrer headers and proxy logs
    Review any intermediate proxy servers (like Apache, nginx, or load balancers) and their access logs. Also examine browser referrer logs if available, looking for URLs with authentication tokens being passed to third-party sites.
    Affected if Authentication tokens appear in referrer headers or proxy logs
  5. Identify exposed authentication endpoints
    Review the AEM authentication servlet mappings and login pages. Check form-based login forms and any custom authentication servlets for POST-only versus GET-based token transmission.
    Affected if Login forms or authentication servlets use GET requests to transmit credentials or tokens

Your environment is affected if you run AEM 6.1.0 or 6.2.0 and authentication tokens are transmitted via HTTP GET request URL parameters rather than POST request bodies or secure headers.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Migrate affected authentication flows from GET to POST requests and ensure sensitive tokens are transmitted via secure headers or request bodies rather than URL parameters. Review and rotate any potentially exposed tokens.

Fix this in Experience Manager Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation8.0 h
  • Testing6.0 h
  • Review / QA4.0 h
22.0 hours of engineering $3,860
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-3111 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2017-3111 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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