CVE-2019-11666
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 · uneditedInsecure deserialization of untrusted data in Micro Focus Service Manager product versions 9.30, 9.31, 9.32, 9.33, 9.34, 9.35, 9.40, 9.41, 9.50, 9.51, 9.52, 9.60, 9.61, 9.62. The vulnerability could be exploited to allow insecure deserialization of untrusted data.
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 · moderate confidenceInsecure deserialization vulnerability in Micro Focus Service Manager allows attackers to deserialize untrusted data, potentially leading to remote code execution. The vulnerability affects versions 9.30 through 9.62 and carries a CVSS score of 8.8, indicating high severity with low attack complexity.
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>= 9.30, <= 9.62CVSS 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
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/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 Service Manager versionAccess the Service Manager admin web interface or check the installation directory for version information. On Windows, the version is often visible in Add/Remove Programs or in the SM server startup logs. On UNIX, check the sm script or version file in the installation path.Affected if The installed version is 9.30, 9.31, 9.32, 9.33, 9.34, 9.35, 9.40, 9.41, 9.42, 9.50, 9.51, 9.52, 9.60, 9.61, or 9.62.
-
Confirm web tier is enabledCheck if the Service Manager web tier or servlet runner process is running and accessible. This is typically exposed on ports 13080, 13400, or the configured HTTP listener port for the web client.Affected if The web tier component is running and exposed on the network.
-
Verify external access to the web interfaceReview firewall rules and network configuration to determine if the Service Manager web port is accessible from outside the internal network or from untrusted zones.Affected if The web interface is reachable from untrusted networks or the internet.
-
Check for unauthenticated endpointsInspect the web tier configuration files (such as web.xml or the servlet configuration) to identify if deserialization endpoints are accessible without authentication.Affected if Deserialization or Java object endpoints are exposed without requiring authentication.
You are affected if Service Manager version 9.30 through 9.62 is installed AND the web tier component is enabled and accessible.
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 dataApply vendor-supplied patches or upgrade to a patched version of Service Manager. If immediate patching is not possible, consider network segmentation and input validation as compensating controls.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing10.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $8,928.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2019-11666 — 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-2019-11666 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