StormApplication · Apache
CVE-2017-9799
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 · uneditedIt was found that under some situations and configurations of Apache Storm 1.x before 1.0.4 and 1.1.x before 1.1.1, it is theoretically possible for the owner of a topology to trick the supervisor to launch a worker as a different, non-root, user. In the worst case this could lead to secure credentials of the other user being compromised.
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 confidenceApache Storm versions before 1.0.4 and 1.1.1 contain a privilege confusion vulnerability where a topology owner can trick the supervisor into launching worker processes as a different non-root user by exploiting certain configurations. This allows potential credential theft from the impersonated user.
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
StormApplication
= 1.0= 1.0.1= 1.0.2= 1.0.3= 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
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/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 installed Apache Storm versionRun 'storm version' command or check the storm-core JAR manifest, or look for the version in the installation directory (typically under 'lib/storm-core-*version*.jar')Affected if Version is 1.0, 1.0.1, 1.0.2, 1.0.3, or 1.1 (exact matches to affected versions)
-
Confirm Apache Storm supervisor is activeCheck if the supervisor daemon is running via 'ps aux | grep supervisor' or by querying the Storm UI (typically port 8080) for supervisor statusAffected if Supervisor is running and managing worker processes (required for the vulnerability to be exploitable)
-
Inspect Storm supervisor configuration for worker user settingsExamine the 'storm.yaml' configuration file (typically in $STORM_HOME/conf/) for 'supervisor.run.worker.as.user' or similar worker user impersonation settingsAffected if Configuration allows workers to run as users other than the supervisor process owner (supervisor.run.worker.as.user is set to true)
-
Review Nimbus seccomp configurationCheck the 'storm.yaml' for 'supervisor.seccomp.enabled' or 'worker.seccomp.enabled' settings that control process isolationAffected if Seccomp filtering is disabled or not properly configured, allowing the impersonation attack vector
A user is affected if they are running Apache Storm version 1.0.x (before 1.0.4) or 1.1.x (before 1.1.1) with the supervisor component active and worker user impersonation enabled in the configuration.
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 Apache Storm to version 1.0.4, 1.1.1, or later to patch this privilege confusion vulnerability.
Fix this in Storm
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $4,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-9799 — 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-2017-9799 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