GHSA-vgg8-72f2-qm23 CVE-2017-7657

Critical severity vulnerability that affects org.eclipse.jetty:jetty-server

Critical Maven

Severity: 9.8 / 10; Critical · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS): 14.88%; Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 96.70% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited: No; Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness: CWE-190 Integer Overflow or Wraparound; CWE-444 Inconsistent Interpretation of HTTP Requests ('HTTP Request/Response Smuggling')
Fix: 9.2.25.v20180606; Upgrade org.eclipse.jetty:jetty-server to this version or later

Description

In Eclipse Jetty, versions 9.2.x and older, 9.3.x, transfer-encoding chunks are handled poorly. The chunk length parsing was vulnerable to an integer overflow. Thus a large chunk size could be interpreted as a smaller chunk size and content sent as chunk body could be interpreted as a pipelined request. If Jetty was deployed behind an intermediary that imposed some authorization and that intermediary allowed arbitrarily large chunks to be passed on unchanged, then this flaw could be used to bypass the authorization imposed by the intermediary as the fake pipelined request would not be interpreted by the intermediary as a request.

Affected versions

Maven

Package	Vulnerable	Fixed in
org.eclipse.jetty:jetty-server	`< 9.2.25.v20180606`	`9.2.25.v20180606`
org.eclipse.jetty:jetty-server	`>= 9.3.0, < 9.3.24.v20180605`	`9.3.24.v20180605`

How to fix

Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.

org.eclipse.jetty:jetty-server Maven → `9.2.25.v20180606`

maven

<dependency><groupId>org.eclipse.jetty</groupId><artifactId>jetty-server</artifactId><version>9.2.25.v20180606</version></dependency>

gradle

implementation("org.eclipse.jetty:jetty-server:9.2.25.v20180606")

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 9.8

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

Attack vector: Network
Attack complexity: Low
Privileges required: None
User interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
Availability: High

Weakness

CWE-190: Integer Overflow or Wraparound

The product performs a calculation that can produce an integer overflow or wraparound when the logic assumes that the resulting value will always be larger than the original value. This occurs when an integer value is incremented to a value that is too large to store in the associated representation. When this occurs, the value may become a very small or negative number.

How to prevent it

Requirements: Ensure that all protocols are strictly defined, such that all out-of-bounds behavior can be identified simply, and require strict conformance to the protocol.
Requirements: Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. If possible, choose a language or compiler that performs automatic bounds checking.
Architecture and Design: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid [REF-1482]. Use libraries or frameworks that make it easier to handle numbers without unexpected consequences. Examples include safe integer handling packages such as SafeInt (C++) or IntegerLib (C or C++). [REF-106]
Implementation: Perform input validation on any numeric input by ensuring that it is within the expected range. Enforce that the input meets both the minimum and maximum requirements for the expected range. Use unsigned integers where possible. This makes it easier to perform validation for integer overflows. When signed integers are required, ensure that the range check includes minimum values as well as maximum values.
Implementation: Understand the programming language's underlying representation and how it interacts with numeric calculation (CWE-681). Pay close attention to byte size discrepancies, precision, signed/unsigned distinctions, truncation, conversion and casting between types, "not-a-number" calculations, and how the language handles numbers that are too large or too small for its underlying representation. [REF-7] Also be careful to account for 32-bit, 64-bit, and other potential differences that may affect the numeric representation.
Architecture and Design: For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
Implementation: Examine compiler warnings closely and eliminate problems with potential security implications, such as signed / unsigned mismatch in memory operations, or use of uninitialized variables. Even if the weakness is rarely exploitable, a single failure may lead to the compromise of the entire system.

CWE-444: Inconsistent Interpretation of HTTP Requests ('HTTP Request/Response Smuggling')

The product acts as an intermediary HTTP agent (such as a proxy or firewall) in the data flow between two entities such as a client and server, but it does not interpret malformed HTTP requests or responses in ways that are consistent with how the messages will be processed by those entities that are at the ultimate destination.

How to prevent it

Implementation: Use a web server that employs a strict HTTP parsing procedure, such as Apache [REF-433].
Implementation: Use only SSL communication.
Implementation: Terminate the client session after each request.
System Configuration: Turn all pages to non-cacheable.

References

Advisories

Timeline

Oct 19, 2018 Published
Feb 17, 2024 Last updated by the source
Nov 1, 2026 Latest EPSS score

Advisory	Severity	Why it's related
GHSA-7p3p-8qv8-m2vh Eclipse Jetty: HTTP Authority/Host mismatch	Medium	Also affects org.eclipse.jetty:jetty-server
GHSA-f4v5-65jj-pcr2 Eclipse Jetty: Cross-Request Leakage for trailers on HTTP/1.1 keep-alive connections	High	Also affects org.eclipse.jetty:jetty-server
GHSA-9299-c6m4-mjhc Eclipse Jetty: DoS attack triggering OutOfMemory with 100-Continue requests	High	Also affects org.eclipse.jetty:jetty-server
GHSA-xxh7-fcf3-rj7f The Eclipse Jetty Server Artifact has a Gzip request memory leak	High	Also affects org.eclipse.jetty:jetty-server
GHSA-q4rv-gq96-w7c5 UNSUPPORTED WHEN ASSIGNED GzipHandler causes part of request body to be seen as request body of a separate request	High	Also affects org.eclipse.jetty:jetty-server
GHSA-g8m5-722r-8whq Eclipse Jetty's ThreadLimitHandler.getRemote() vulnerable to remote DoS attacks	Medium	Also affects org.eclipse.jetty:jetty-server
GHSA-p26g-97m4-6q7c Eclipse Jetty's cookie parsing of quoted values can exfiltrate values from other cookies	Medium	Also affects org.eclipse.jetty:jetty-server
GHSA-qw69-rqj8-6qw8 OutOfMemoryError for large multipart without filename in Eclipse Jetty	Medium	Also affects org.eclipse.jetty:jetty-server

Is this in your code?

MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.

Check your repos with MergeHarbor