CVE-2017-7504
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 · uneditedHTTPServerILServlet.java in JMS over HTTP Invocation Layer of the JbossMQ implementation, which is enabled by default in Red Hat Jboss Application Server <= Jboss 4.X does not restrict the classes for which it performs deserialization, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via crafted serialized data.
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 confidenceThis is an unsafe deserialization vulnerability in JBoss Application Server's JMS over HTTP Invocation Layer (JBossMQ). The HTTPServerILServlet component deserializes Java objects without restricting allowed classes, enabling remote attackers to execute arbitrary code by sending crafted serialized payloads.
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<= 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
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/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 JBoss installation and versionCheck for JBoss installation directories (typically under /opt/jboss, /usr/share/jboss, or similar paths) and locate the version file (often version.properties or jboss-version.txt in the installation root)Affected if JBoss Enterprise Application Platform version 4.0 or lower is found
-
Locate the HTTPServerILServlet configurationSearch for web.xml or jboss-web.xml configuration files in the deploy directory (commonly deploy/jbossweb-java2.sar/ or server/<profile>/deploy/jbossweb.sar/) and look for HTTPServerILServlet servlet definition and mappingAffected if The HTTPServerILServlet is defined and mapped to a URL pattern (typically /httphinv/* or similar JMS-related path)
-
Verify JMS over HTTP is actively listeningCheck for running HTTP/HTTPS listeners on ports typically used by JBoss (often 8080, 8443, or custom ports) and examine active network listeners using netstat or ss commands, looking for JMS-related service bindingsAffected if JBoss HTTP listener is active and JMS HTTP invocation layer is bound to a network interface
-
Inspect JMS deployment configurationExamine files in the JBoss deploy directory for jms-related deployment descriptors (such as jms/hsqldb-jdbc2-service.xml, jms/jbossmq-httpil.sar, or similar JMS invocation layer deployments)Affected if JMS over HTTP Invocation Layer (jbossmq-httpil) is deployed and enabled
You are affected if you have JBoss EAP 4.0 or lower with the HTTPServerILServlet and JMS over HTTP Invocation Layer deployed and running.
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 · scopedUpgrade from vulnerable JBoss 4.X versions to supported versions, or disable the JMS over HTTP Invocation Layer if not required, combined with network access controls to limit exposure.
JBoss EAP 6.x or 7.x (JBoss 4.x is end-of-life; migrate to modern supported EAP version)
- 1. Identify all systems running JBoss Application Server 4.x or JBoss EAP 4.x
- 2. Verify that the JMS over HTTP Invocation Layer (HTTPServerILServlet) is enabled on affected systems
- 3. Plan upgrade to a supported JBoss Enterprise Application Platform version (JBoss EAP 6.x or 7.x)
- 4. Before upgrade, back up all application data, configurations, and deployment artifacts
- 5. Test the upgrade in a non-production environment first
- 6. Upgrade production systems to the new JBoss EAP version
- 7. Verify that applications function correctly post-upgrade
- 8. Confirm the vulnerability is no longer present by reviewing release notes of the target version
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing12.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $11,200.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-7504 — 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-2017-7504 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