CVE-2019-11642
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 · uneditedA log poisoning vulnerability has been discovered in the OneShield Policy (Dragon Core) framework before 5.1.10. Authenticated remote adversaries can poison log files by entering malicious payloads in either headers or form elements. These payloads are then executed via a client side debugging console. This is predicated on the debugging console and Java Bean being made available to the deployed application.
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 confidenceThis is a log poisoning vulnerability in OneShield Policy (Dragon Core) framework versions before 5.1.10. Authenticated remote attackers can inject malicious JavaScript payloads into log files by submitting them through HTTP headers or form fields. When the client-side debugging console is used to view these logs, the injected payloads execute in the user's browser. The vulnerability specifically requires the debugging console and JavaBean to be exposed in the production deployment.
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< 5.1.10CVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/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 OneShield Policy versionLocate the Dragon Core framework version information in your OneShield Policy installation. This is typically found in version manifests, build files, or the application itself. Compare your installed version against the affected range: versions before 5.1.10 are vulnerable.Affected if The installed version is earlier than 5.1.10
-
Determine if debugging console is exposedInspect your production deployment configuration to determine whether the client-side debugging console is enabled or remains accessible. This is typically controlled via application configuration or deployment descriptors.Affected if The debugging console is enabled or accessible in production
-
Determine if JavaBean is exposedInspect your production deployment configuration to determine whether the JavaBean component is enabled or remains accessible. This is typically controlled via application configuration or deployment descriptors.Affected if The JavaBean is enabled or accessible in production
You are affected if your OneShield Policy version is earlier than 5.1.10 AND either the debugging console or JavaBean is exposed in your production environment.
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 data5.1.10
Upgrade to OneShield Policy framework version 5.1.10 or later, and ensure the debugging console and JavaBean are disabled or removed from production environments.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2019-11642 — 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-2019-11642 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