dbcve.org
RocketmqApplication · Apache

CVE-2019-17572

MEDIUM · 5.3 CVSS v3.1 Published 2020-05-14
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to after 4.6.0 or later.
See remediation →
62/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
In Apache RocketMQ 4.2.0 to 4.6.0, when the automatic topic creation in the broker is turned on by default, an evil topic like “../../../../topic2020” is sent from rocketmq-client to the broker, a topic folder will be created in the parent directory in brokers, which leads to a directory traversal vulnerability. Users of the affected versions should apply one of the following: Upgrade to Apache RocketMQ 4.6.1 or later.

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 confidence

Apache RocketMQ 4.2.0-4.6.0 contains a directory traversal vulnerability in the broker's automatic topic creation feature (enabled by default). Attackers can send specially crafted topic names containing '../' sequences (e.g., '../../../../topic2020') to create arbitrary folders outside the intended broker directory.

MitigationUpgrade to Apache RocketMQ 4.6.1 or later. Alternatively, disable automatic topic creation in the broker configuration (set autoCreateTopicEnable to false).

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
RocketmqApplication
Affected:>= 4.2.0, <= 4.6.0

CVSS 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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify RocketMQ broker version
    Check the version of the RocketMQ broker process or installation directory. Common methods: inspect the rocketmq-broker jar file name in the broker's lib folder, run 'java -jar rocketmq-broker-*.jar' to see version output, or check the release notes included with the installation.
    Affected if The installed version is 4.2.0, 4.3.x, 4.4.x, 4.5.x, or 4.6.0 (any version between 4.2.0 and 4.6.0 inclusive).
  2. Locate broker configuration file
    Find the broker configuration file (typically broker.conf, or defined via --brokerConfigFile argument when starting the broker). This file is usually in the RocketMQ distribution under the conf directory, or in a custom path specified at broker startup.
    Affected if The configuration file exists and can be inspected.
  3. Check autoCreateTopicEnable setting
    Open the broker configuration file and search for the 'autoCreateTopicEnable' property. If not present, the default value is true. Look for lines like 'autoCreateTopicEnable=true' or 'autoCreateTopicEnable=false'.
    Affected if The property is set to true OR is absent (defaults to true). This means automatic topic creation is enabled and the broker is vulnerable to the directory traversal flaw.
  4. Verify broker is exposed to untrusted topic names
    Determine whether the broker accepts topic creation requests from unauthenticated or untrusted clients. Review network ACLs, client permissions, and whether the broker listens on a trusted internal network or an exposed interface.
    Affected if Untrusted or anonymous clients can send topic creation requests to the broker. Combined with the version and autoCreateTopicEnable=true, the broker is vulnerable.

A RocketMQ broker is affected if it runs version 4.2.0 through 4.6.0 AND has autoCreateTopicEnable set to true (or using the default value), with network exposure to untrusted clients who can craft topic names with traversal sequences.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Upgrade available Upgrade to a release after 4.6.0
Interim mitigation

Upgrade to Apache RocketMQ 4.6.1 or later. Alternatively, disable automatic topic creation in the broker configuration (set autoCreateTopicEnable to false).

Fix this in Rocketmq Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation3.0 h
  • Implementation4.0 h
  • Testing6.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
15.0 hours of engineering $2,580
Get the upgrade done

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,128.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2019-17572 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2019-17572 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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