CVE-2019-17632
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 versions 9.4.21.v20190926, 9.4.22.v20191022, and 9.4.23.v20191118, the generation of default unhandled Error response content (in text/html and text/json Content-Type) does not escape Exception messages in stacktraces included in error output.
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 confidenceIn Eclipse Jetty versions 9.4.21-9.4.23, default unhandled error responses (text/html and text/json) include Exception stack traces without escaping Exception messages, potentially allowing injection of malicious content or information disclosure.
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= 9.4.21= 9.4.22= 9.4.23CVSS 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
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/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.
-
Identify Jetty versionLocate the jetty-version.jar file or check the jetty-util library version in your deployment. Common paths: $JETTY_HOME/lib/jetty-util-*.jar or examine the Maven/Gradle dependency tree for org.eclipse.jetty:jetty-util. Run: java -jar jetty-version.jar if available, or check the version string in the JAR manifest.Affected if The version shown is 9.4.21, 9.4.22, or 9.4.23 exactly
-
Verify default error handlers are activeCheck if your web application or Jetty server configuration uses the default ErrorHandler. Inspect WEB-INF/web.xml for <error-page> entries - if none are defined, Jetty's default ErrorHandler is in use. Also check jetty-web.xml or context XML files for custom error handler configuration.Affected if No custom error-page handlers are defined in web.xml or context configuration, meaning default Jetty error handling applies
-
Test error page output for unescaped contentTrigger an unhandled exception in your application (for example, access a non-existent resource or cause a null pointer). Inspect the default error page response - if it contains raw Exception stack traces with potentially unescaped HTML characters in error messages or stack trace elements, the vulnerability is present.Affected if The error response contains unescaped HTML in Exception messages, stack traces, or causes
You are affected if you are running Jetty version 9.4.21, 9.4.22, or 9.4.23 with default error handlers enabled (the default configuration), which causes unescaped Exception content to appear in error 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 Jetty to version 9.4.24.v20191117 or later, or implement custom error handlers that properly escape/encode error output before rendering.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $1,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2019-17632 — 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-2019-17632 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