CVE-2017-9791
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 Struts 1 plugin in Apache Struts 2.1.x and 2.3.x might allow remote code execution via a malicious field value passed in a raw message to the ActionMessage.
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 Struts 1 plugin in Apache Struts 2.1.x and 2.3.x contains a remote code execution vulnerability. Attackers can exploit this by passing malicious field values directly to ActionMessage, allowing arbitrary code execution on the server.
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= 2.3.1= 2.3.1.1= 2.3.1.2= 2.3.3= 2.3.4= 2.3.4.1= 2.3.7= 2.3.8= 2.3.12= 2.3.14= 2.3.14.1= 2.3.14.2CVSS 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:3.1/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 Struts versionLocate the Struts core JAR file (typically struts2-core-x.x.x.jar) in your application's lib directory or build dependencies. Check the filename or inspect the MANIFEST.MF file inside the JAR for the exact version number.Affected if The installed version matches any of these: 2.3.1, 2.3.1.1, 2.3.1.2, 2.3.3, 2.3.4, 2.3.4.1, 2.3.7, 2.3.8, 2.3.12, 2.3.14, 2.3.14.1, 2.3.14.2, or falls within the 2.1.x to 2.3.x range.
-
Confirm Struts 1 plugin is deployedSearch your application deployment for the struts2-struts1-plugin.jar file in the WEB-INF/lib directory or check your build configuration (pom.xml, build.gradle) for a dependency on struts2-struts1-plugin.Affected if The struts2-struts1-plugin JAR is present in the application.
-
Verify ActionMessage usageSearch your codebase for imports of org.apache.struts2.ActionMessage or com.opensymphony.xwork2.ActionMessage, and examine code that constructs ActionMessage objects with potentially unsanitized user input.Affected if ActionMessage is used to display field values or messages derived from user input without validation.
-
Inspect message key configurationReview your Struts XML configuration files (struts.xml) and any message property files (*.properties) for keys referenced by ActionMessage calls, checking if they accept dynamic field name parameters.Affected if ActionMessage is invoked with raw field values passed as arguments to message keys.
Your environment is likely affected if you are running any of the listed Struts 2.3.x versions (particularly 2.3.14 through 2.3.14.2), have the Struts 1 plugin deployed, and use ActionMessage with user-supplied field values.
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 Struts 2 to a version beyond 2.3.x or disable/remove the Struts 1 plugin if not required; validate and sanitize all user input passed to ActionMessage.
Struts 2.3.32 or Struts 2.5.10.1+ (2.5.x series recommended for new deployments)
- 1. Identify all applications and components using affected Struts versions (2.3.1, 2.3.1.1, 2.3.1.2, 2.3.3) in your environment
- 2. Verify if the Struts 1 plugin (struts2-struts1-plugin) is in use, as this is the vulnerable component
- 3. For Struts 2.3.x users: upgrade to Struts 2.3.32 (minimum fixed version) or migrate to Struts 2.5.x series
- 4. For Struts 2.5.x users: ensure you are on version 2.5.10.1 or later which contains the fix
- 5. Update Maven pom.xml dependencies: change struts2-core version to 2.3.32 or later, or 2.5.10.1 or later
- 6. Rebuild and redeploy all affected applications
- 7. Test thoroughly to verify the upgrade does not break existing functionality
- 8. Monitor application logs for indicators of exploitation attempts
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-2017-9791 — 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-2017-9791 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