CVE-2017-9325
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 provided secure solrconfig.xml sample configuration does not enforce Sentry authorization on /update/json/docs.
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 provided secure solrconfig.xml sample configuration for Apache Solr fails to enforce Sentry authorization on the /update/json/docs endpoint. Despite being marketed as a secure configuration, the endpoint remains unprotected and accessible without authentication, allowing unauthorized users to potentially insert or modify data.
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<= 5.8.0>= 5.8.2, <= 5.9.2>= 5.10.0, <= 5.10.1>= 5.11.0, <= 5.11.1CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/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.
-
Check Cloudera CDH versionRun 'cloudera-manager --version' or check the CDH version via Cloudera Manager web UI under Hosts > VersionsAffected if Version is <= 5.8.0, OR >= 5.8.2 and <= 5.9.2, OR >= 5.10.0 and <= 5.10.1, OR >= 5.11.0 and <= 5.11.1
-
Confirm Sentry authorization is enabled for SolrLocate the solrconfig.xml for your Solr collection (typically in /var/lib/solr or /opt/cloudera/parcels) and verify that the <authorization> or Sentry-related configuration block existsAffected if No authorization block exists or Sentry is not configured for Solr
-
Verify /update/json/docs is covered by authorization rulesIn the solrconfig.xml, search for any <rule> or <permission> elements that explicitly include the /update/json/docs endpoint pathAffected if No rule explicitly references /update/json/docs or the endpoint is not listed in any authorization permission
-
Test unauthenticated access to the endpointSend an HTTP request to http://<solr-host>:8983/solr/<collection>/update/json/docs?json={"id":"test"} without providing any authentication credentialsAffected if The request succeeds with HTTP 200 and data is accepted, indicating the endpoint is unprotected
You are affected if running a vulnerable CDH version AND the /update/json/docs endpoint accepts requests without Sentry authorization validation.
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 dataModify the solrconfig.xml to explicitly configure Sentry authorization rules that cover the /update/json/docs endpoint, or replace the sample configuration with a properly secured configuration that enforces authorization on all update endpoints.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing1.0 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 $1,424.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-9325 — 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-2017-9325 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