HTTP ServerWeb server / proxy · Apache
CVE-2019-17567
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 · uneditedApache HTTP Server versions 2.4.6 to 2.4.46 mod_proxy_wstunnel configured on an URL that is not necessarily Upgraded by the origin server was tunneling the whole connection regardless, thus allowing for subsequent requests on the same connection to pass through with no HTTP validation, authentication or authorization possibly configured.
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 confidenceIn Apache HTTP Server 2.4.6-2.4.46, mod_proxy_wstunnel does not properly validate that the origin server actually upgraded the connection before tunneling. When configured on certain URLs, the entire connection is tunneled regardless of upgrade status, allowing subsequent requests to bypass HTTP validation, authentication, and authorization checks.
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
HTTP ServerWeb server / proxy
>= 2.4.6, <= 2.4.46
FedoraOperating system
= 34= 35= 12.4.0.0= 17.1= 17.2= 17.3= 8.8CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/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.
-
Check installed Apache HTTP Server versionRun 'httpd -v' or 'apache2 -v' to retrieve the server version numberAffected if The version is between 2.4.6 and 2.4.46 inclusive
-
Verify mod_proxy_wstunnel is loadedRun 'httpd -M' or 'apache2ctl -M' and look for 'proxy_wstunnel_module' in the loaded modules listAffected if mod_proxy_wstunnel is present and loaded
-
Inspect mod_proxy_wstunnel configurationSearch configuration files (httpd.conf, apache2.conf, included conf files) for 'ProxyPass' or 'ProxyPassMatch' directives using the 'wstunnel' protocol, for example: 'ProxyPass /path wss://backend/ upgrade=websocket'Affected if Any ProxyPass or ProxyPassMatch directive with 'wstunnel' is configured on paths that should require HTTP authentication or authorization
-
Check for unprotected proxy pathsReview the configured proxy paths and verify whether they overlap with locations protected by Require, AuthType, or other access control directivesAffected if The wstunnel proxy path matches or encompasses URLs that have authentication or authorization rules that should apply
You are affected if you run Apache 2.4.6-2.4.46, have mod_proxy_wstunnel loaded, and have configured it on URLs where HTTP authentication or authorization checks should be enforced.
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 Apache HTTP Server to version 2.4.47 or later, or ensure mod_proxy_wstunnel is only configured on URLs that require WebSocket upgrades and properly validate upgrade responses.
Fix this in HTTP Server
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $3,328.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2019-17567 — 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-2019-17567 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