Apm AgentApplication · Elastic
CVE-2019-7617
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 · uneditedWhen the Elastic APM agent for Python versions before 5.1.0 is run as a CGI script, there is a variable name clash flaw if a remote attacker can control the proxy header. This could result in an attacker redirecting collected APM data to a proxy of their choosing.
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 confidenceThe Elastic APM Python agent before version 5.1.0 contains a variable name clash vulnerability when running as a CGI script. If an attacker can control proxy headers (e.g., X-Forwarded-For, Via, or custom proxy headers), they can redirect APM telemetry data to an arbitrary proxy server under their control, leading to data exfiltration.
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
Apm AgentApplication
< 5.1.0CVSS 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
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/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.
-
Check installed Elastic APM Python agent versionRun 'pip list' or 'pip show elastic-apm' (or 'elasticapm') to see the installed version numberAffected if Version is lower than 5.1.0
-
Confirm Python agent is in useCheck your application imports (e.g., 'from elasticapm import' or 'import elasticapm') and that the agent is initialized in your codeAffected if The elasticapm or elastic-apm package is imported and initialized
-
Determine if the application runs in CGI modeCheck if the application is executed as a CGI script (look for CGI indicators like the presence of 'cgi' module usage, CGI environment variables being read, or the process being invoked via HTTP server CGI handling)Affected if The application runs as a CGI script and uses the APM agent
-
Check for exposure of proxy headers to the applicationInspect HTTP request handling to see if headers such as X-Forwarded-For, Via, or custom proxy headers from the request are accessible to the application (these are typically passed via HTTP headers or CGI environment variables)Affected if Proxy headers from incoming requests can be controlled by external users and are accessible to the application
You are affected if the Elastic APM Python agent version is below 5.1.0, the agent is in use, your application runs as a CGI script, and untrusted proxy headers (X-Forwarded-For, Via, or custom headers) can be controlled by attackers.
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 data5.1.0
Upgrade the Elastic APM Python agent to version 5.1.0 or later. If upgrading is not immediately possible, avoid running the agent in CGI mode or ensure proxy headers cannot be controlled by untrusted sources.
Fix this in Apm Agent
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $2,832.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2019-7617 — 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-2019-7617 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