JenkinsApplication
CVE-2023-36478
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 · uneditedEclipse Jetty provides a web server and servlet container. In versions 11.0.0 through 11.0.15, 10.0.0 through 10.0.15, and 9.0.0 through 9.4.52, an integer overflow in `MetaDataBuilder.checkSize` allows for HTTP/2 HPACK header values to exceed their size limit. `MetaDataBuilder.java` determines if a header name or value exceeds the size limit, and throws an exception if the limit is exceeded. However, when length is very large and huffman is true, the multiplication by 4 in line 295 will overflow, and length will become negative. `(_size+length)` will now be negative, and the check on line 296 will not be triggered. Furthermore, `MetaDataBuilder.checkSize` allows for user-entered HPACK header value sizes to be negative, potentially leading to a very large buffer allocation later on when the user-entered size is multiplied by 2. This means that if a user provides a negative length value (or, more precisely, a length value which, when multiplied by the 4/3 fudge factor, is negative), and this length value is a very large positive number when multiplied by 2, then the user can cause a very large buffer to be allocated on the server. Users of HTTP/2 can be impacted by a remote denial of service attack. The issue has been fixed in versions 11.0.16, 10.0.16, and 9.4.53. There are no known workarounds.
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 analysisAn arithmetic operation produces a value too large for its type and wraps around to an unexpected — often tiny or negative — number. That miscalculated value then drives a memory allocation or a bounds check, opening the door to corruption. The fix is checked arithmetic and validating sizes before they're used.
General guidance for the integer overflow class — the official description and references above are authoritative for this specific CVE. Want a bespoke review and a reviewed fix? Ask our team →
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
JenkinsApplication
< 2.414.3< 2.428
Debian LinuxOperating system
= 10.0= 11.0= 12.0>= 9.3.0, < 9.4.53>= 10.0.0, < 10.0.16>= 11.0.0, < 11.0.16CVSS 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
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
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.
dbcve · scoped2.414.32.4289.4.53
Jetty 9.4.53 / 10.0.16 / 11.0.16 (or Jenkins 2.414.3/2.428)
- Identify the Jetty major version in use (9.x, 10.x, or 11.x) by checking the jetty-version maven artifact, lib directory, or dependency management
- For Jetty 9.x: Upgrade to version 9.4.53 or later
- For Jetty 10.x: Upgrade to version 10.0.16 or later
- For Jetty 11.x: Upgrade to version 11.0.16 or later
- If using Jenkins: Upgrade to Jenkins 2.414.3 (weekly) or 2.428 (LTS) depending on your release line
- Restart the Jetty or Jenkins service after upgrade to apply changes
- Verify the upgrade was successful by checking the server version and testing HTTP/2 functionality
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-36478 — 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-2023-36478 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