CVE-2018-1269
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 · uneditedCloud Foundry Loggregator, versions 89.x prior to 89.5 or 96.x prior to 96.1 or 99.x prior to 99.1 or 101.x prior to 101.9 or 102.x prior to 102.2, does not handle errors thrown while constructing certain http requests. A remote authenticated user may construct malicious requests to cause the traffic controller to leave dangling TCP connections, which could cause denial of service.
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 confidenceCloud Foundry Loggregator traffic controller fails to handle errors during HTTP request construction, allowing authenticated remote users to send malicious requests that leave dangling TCP connections, leading to denial of service.
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>= 89, < 89.5>= 96, < 96.1>= 99, < 99.1>= 101, < 101.9>= 102, < 102.2CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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 Loggregator traffic controller installationCheck if Cloud Foundry Loggregator traffic controller is deployed in your environment. Common locations: bosh deployments listing or the Loggregator component in your Cloud Foundry foundation.Affected if Loggregator traffic controller is not installed in your environment, you are not affected.
-
Determine Loggregator versionQuery the Loggregator traffic controller version using 'bosh vms' for the Loggregator deployment or check the release manifest file used to deploy Cloud Foundry.Affected if You cannot determine the version, assume you may be affected and investigate further.
-
Compare installed version against affected rangesCheck if your Loggregator version falls within any of these ranges: 89.x where x < 89.5; 96.x where x < 96.1; 99.x where x < 99.1; 101.x where x < 101.9; 102.x where x < 102.2.Affected if Your version is within any of the affected ranges listed above, you are vulnerable.
-
Verify authenticated user access to traffic controllerReview your Cloud Foundry UAA configuration and network policies to determine if authenticated users can directly access the Loggregator traffic controller endpoints.Affected if Unauthenticated or no direct user access to traffic controller, the exploit path is limited but version check remains the primary indicator.
You are affected if the Loggregator traffic controller version is one of the following: 89.0 to 89.4, 96.0 to 96.0, 99.0 to 99.0, 101.0 to 101.8, or 102.0 to 102.1.
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 data89.596.199.1
Upgrade Loggregator to version 89.5+, 96.1+, 99.1+, 101.9+, or 102.2+ to patch the error handling vulnerability.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,408.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-1269 — 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-2018-1269 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