CVE-2019-10246
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 · uneditedIn Eclipse Jetty version 9.2.27, 9.3.26, and 9.4.16, the server running on Windows is vulnerable to exposure of the fully qualified Base Resource directory name on Windows to a remote client when it is configured for showing a Listing of directory contents. This information reveal is restricted to only the content in the configured base resource directories.
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 confidenceEclipse Jetty versions 9.2.27, 9.3.26, and 9.4.16 on Windows expose the full path of the configured base resource directory to remote clients when directory listing is enabled, allowing attackers to obtain sensitive path information.
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= 9.2.27= 9.3.26= 9.4.16>= 3.0, <= 3.1.3all versionsall versionsall versions>= 9.6= 9.6all versions>= 9.6all versionsCVSS 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
- Low
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/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.
-
Identify installed Jetty versionCheck the Jetty version by examining the jetty-version.jar or start.jar manifest, or run: java -jar start.jar --versionAffected if The version is exactly 9.2.27, 9.3.26, or 9.4.16
-
Verify operating system is WindowsCheck the OS using: uname -a (if on Linux/Unix) or systeminfo (on Windows), or check java.os propertyAffected if The server is running on Windows
-
Confirm directory listing is enabledExamine the web.xml or jetty-web.xml configuration for the DefaultServlet; look for init-param 'directoryListing' set to 'true', or check if the org.eclipse.jetty.servlet.DefaultServlet directoryListing attribute is set to true in code or contextAffected if Directory listing is enabled (directoryListing param set to true or not explicitly set to false)
-
Test for path disclosure via HTTPSend an HTTP request to a directory on the Jetty server that would trigger directory listing, such as: curl http://target:8080/ or http://target:8080/somedirectory/Affected if The response includes the full filesystem path to the base resource directory (e.g., C:\path\to\webapps or /full/path/to/resources)
You are affected only if you are running Jetty exactly version 9.2.27, 9.3.26, or 9.4.16 on Windows with directory listing enabled, and the server responds with full filesystem paths in directory listing responses.
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 to Jetty 9.2.28, 9.3.27, 9.4.17 or later, or disable directory listing (set org.eclipse.jetty.servlet.DefaultServlet directoryListing to false) if upgrading is not feasible.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing1.0 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 $1,424.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2019-10246 — 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-2019-10246 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