GeodeApplication · Apache
CVE-2019-10091
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 · uneditedWhen TLS is enabled with ssl-endpoint-identification-enabled set to true, Apache Geode fails to perform hostname verification of the entries in the certificate SAN during the SSL handshake. This could compromise intra-cluster communication using a man-in-the-middle attack.
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 confidenceWhen Apache Geode has TLS enabled with ssl-endpoint-identification-enabled set to true, the system fails to perform hostname verification against certificate Subject Alternative Names (SAN) during the SSL handshake. This allows an attacker to intercept intra-cluster communication via a man-in-the-middle attack by presenting a certificate that is valid but not matched to the target hostname.
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
GeodeApplication
= 1.9.0CVSS 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
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/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.
-
Verify Apache Geode versionRun 'geode --version' or check the geode-core JAR manifest for the version numberAffected if The installed version is exactly 1.9.0
-
Confirm TLS/SSL is enabledCheck geode.properties or gfsh output for ssl-enabled=true, or look for SSL-related cluster configurationAffected if TLS/SSL is enabled for intra-cluster communication
-
Check ssl-endpoint-identification-enabled settingInspect geode.properties or run 'list member' with SSL configuration details to find ssl-endpoint-identification-enabled propertyAffected if ssl-endpoint-identification-enabled is set to true in the configuration
-
Verify hostname verification behaviorCapture SSL handshake traffic or examine SSL debug logs (javax.net.debug=ssl) during cluster communication to confirm whether hostname verification actually occurs against certificate SAN entriesAffected if Hostname verification fails to validate despite ssl-endpoint-identification-enabled being true
You are affected if you run Apache Geode version 1.9.0 with TLS enabled and ssl-endpoint-identification-enabled set to true, but hostname verification does not actually occur during SSL handshakes.
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 dataEnsure ssl-endpoint-identification-enabled is properly enabled and functioning, verify that certificates contain correct SAN entries matching cluster hostnames, and validate that hostname verification actually occurs during SSL handshakes.
Fix this in Geode
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $1,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2019-10091 — 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-2019-10091 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