X PackApplication · Elastic
CVE-2017-8450
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 · uneditedX-Pack 5.1.1 did not properly apply document and field level security to multi-search and multi-get requests so users without access to a document and/or field may have been able to access this information.
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 confidenceX-Pack security 5.1.1 failed to properly enforce document and field level security on multi-search and multi-get requests, allowing authenticated users without proper document/field permissions to access restricted information through these bulk API endpoints.
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
X PackApplication
= 5.1.1CVSS 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 installed X-Pack versionRun bin/elasticsearch --version or check the contents of the X-Pack JAR file meta-inf/manifest.mf for the version, or query the /_xpack endpointAffected if The installed X-Pack version is exactly 5.1.1
-
Confirm X-Pack security is enabledCheck elasticsearch.yml for xpack.security.enabled: true setting, or query the /_xpack/security endpointAffected if X-Pack security is enabled and the version is 5.1.1
-
Verify document or field level security is in useReview role definitions in the security API (GET /_xpack/security/role) for any roles containing dls or fls clauses, or check the elasticsearch.yml for xpack.security.dls.* settingsAffected if Document-level security (DLS) or field-level security (FLS) is defined in any role and the X-Pack version is 5.1.1
-
Check for users with multi-search or multi-get accessReview user-role mappings via GET /_xpack/security/role_mapping and identify roles that have access to _msearch or _mget endpoints, or examine audit logs for _msearch and _mget access patternsAffected if Any authenticated users exist who can access the _msearch or _mget APIs and DLS/FLS is in effect with version 5.1.1
A user is affected if they are running X-Pack version 5.1.1 with security enabled and have document or field level security configured while allowing authenticated users access to multi-search or multi-get endpoints.
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 dataUpgrade X-Pack to version 5.1.2 or later which properly enforces document and field level security on multi-search and multi-get requests.
Fix this in X Pack
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $3,328.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-8450 — 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-2017-8450 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