Rabbitmq Java ClientApplication · VMware
CVE-2018-11087
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 · uneditedPivotal Spring AMQP, 1.x versions prior to 1.7.10 and 2.x versions prior to 2.0.6, expose a man-in-the-middle vulnerability due to lack of hostname validation. A malicious user that has the ability to intercept traffic would be able to view data in transit.
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 confidencePivotal Spring AMQP versions prior to 1.7.10 (1.x) and 2.0.6 (2.x) lack proper hostname validation during SSL/TLS handshakes, allowing man-in-the-middle attackers to intercept and view sensitive data in transit.
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
Rabbitmq Java ClientApplication
< 4.8.0>= 4.8.1, < 5.4.0>= 1.0.0, < 1.7.10>= 2.0.0, < 2.0.6CVSS 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
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/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.
-
Determine Spring AMQP versionInspect your project's dependency management file (pom.xml, build.gradle, or similar) for the spring-amqp version, or examine the spring-amqp JAR file manifest if deployed as a standalone libraryAffected if Version is 1.x and below 1.7.10, or 2.x and below 2.0.6, or the RabbitMQ Java Client is below 4.8.0, or between 4.8.1 and 5.4.0 exclusive
-
Verify SSL/TLS is enabledExamine your RabbitMQ connection factory bean configuration for SSL-enabled properties such as 'useSSL=true', 'sslEnabled=true', or a RabbitMQ config file with the 'ssl' listener enabledAffected if SSL/TLS is not explicitly enabled in the connection factory configuration, the vulnerability does not apply
-
Check for explicit hostname verification configurationInspect your RabbitMQ connection factory bean for properties like 'hostnameVerifier', 'sslProperties', or similar explicit hostname verification settings; also check any custom SSLContext configurationAffected if No explicit hostname verification is configured and SSL is enabled, the vulnerable default behavior applies
You are affected if your Spring AMQP version is within the vulnerable range, SSL/TLS is enabled for RabbitMQ connections, and no explicit hostname verification has been configured in the connection factory.
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 data1.7.102.0.64.8.0
Upgrade Spring AMQP to version 1.7.10 or later for the 1.x branch, or 2.0.6 or later for the 2.x branch. If upgrade is not immediately possible, explicitly configure hostname verification in the RabbitMQ connection factory.
Fix this in Rabbitmq Java Client
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $2,752.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-11087 — 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-2018-11087 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