CVE-2024-7708
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 · uneditedFor requests that have a body, but reading the body may end up in reading 0 bytes, there is a buffer leak. This is particularly the case for 100-Continue, but any request where the network is slow can leak.
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 confidenceA buffer leak vulnerability exists in HTTP request body handling where reading zero bytes (common with 100-Continue responses or slow network conditions) fails to properly release allocated buffers, leading to resource exhaustion over time.
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>= 10.0.7, < 10.0.23>= 11.0.7, < 11.0.23CVSS 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
- 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
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 the installed Jetty versionCheck the jetty-version.jar or examine the classpath for Jetty JAR files (look for jetty-http-*.jar, jetty-server-*.jar). You can also check your build manifest or pom.xml dependencies.Affected if The version is >= 10.0.7 and < 10.0.23, or >= 11.0.7 and < 11.0.23
-
Confirm the server handles HTTP requestsVerify that your application uses Jetty as an HTTP server. Check if you have HttpServletRequest handling or use Jetty's HttpClient/Server APIs to process incoming HTTP traffic.Affected if The server processes HTTP requests from clients - this is the default behavior for any Jetty HTTP server deployment
-
Check for 100-Continue or chunked upload usageReview your application code and server configuration for endpoints that accept request bodies (POST, PUT). Look for servlet mappings, JAX-RS endpoints, or handlers that read InputStream from HttpServletRequest. Check if clients send Expect: 100-continue headers.Affected if The server accepts HTTP request bodies from clients, especially when using Expect: 100-continue or handling large/chunked uploads
-
Monitor for resource exhaustion indicatorsIf the server has been running, check for growing memory usage in the heap, especially in buffer pool allocations. Use JMX or monitoring tools to observe the number of ByteBuffer allocations over time. Look for OutOfMemoryError exceptions related to direct memory.Affected if Memory or buffer pool usage grows continuously without release, indicating the buffer leak is active
-
Verify HTTP connector configurationInspect your Jetty XML configuration files or Java code that sets up ServerConnector. Check the HttpConfiguration, especially buffer sizes (requestBufferSize, responseBufferSize) and whether any custom BufferPool is configured.Affected if Using default Jetty HTTP connectors with standard buffer configurations - the vulnerability affects all such configurations in affected versions
You are affected if your Jetty version falls within 10.0.7-10.0.23 or 11.0.7-11.0.23 AND your server handles HTTP request bodies from clients, particularly when Expect: 100-continue or slow network conditions are involved.
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.
dbcve · scoped10.0.2311.0.23
Apply the vendor-supplied patch or upgrade to a fixed version that properly manages buffer allocation/deallocation when zero bytes are read from request bodies.
Jetty 10.0.23 or 11.0.23 (or later stable releases within the same major version)
- 1. Identify all Jetty server instances running versions 10.0.7 through 10.0.22, or 11.0.7 through 11.0.22
- 2. Download Jetty 10.0.23 or 11.0.23 (or latest stable 10.0.x/11.0.x release) from the official Eclipse Jetty repository
- 3. Replace the existing jetty-core JAR files with the new version, ensuring all dependent libraries are also updated
- 4. Restart all Jetty server instances
- 5. Verify the servers are running the patched version by checking the startup logs or using the Jetty version information endpoint
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing5.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,752.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-7708 — 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-2024-7708 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