LiveActive security incident?Get immediate response
CVE Record

CVE-2017-7657: In Eclipse Jetty, versions 9.2.x and older, 9.3.x (all configurations), and 9.4.x (non-default configuratio...

In Eclipse Jetty, versions 9.2.x and older, 9.3.x (all configurations), and 9.4.x (non-default configuration with RFC2616 compliance enabled), 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.

UnknownCVSS not scoredNot KEV-listedUpdated
Discuss exposureBack to CVEs
Glexia's TakeAutomated analysismoderate

Security readout for executives and security teams

Plain-English summary

CVE-2017-7657 is a Jetty HTTP parsing flaw that can make a specially formed large chunked request look smaller to Jetty. In a narrow deployment pattern, this can let traffic bypass authorization enforced by a front-end intermediary.

Executive priority

Treat as a targeted remediation item for Jetty-backed services behind authorization gateways. It is not KEV-listed in the provided bundle, but the business impact can be serious where proxy authorization protects backend Jetty routes.

Technical view

Jetty mishandled chunk length parsing due to integer overflow, creating a request smuggling condition under CWE-444. Affected scope is Jetty 9.2.x and older, 9.3.x, and Jetty 9.4.x only when RFC2616 compliance is enabled.

Likely exposure

Exposure is most likely in Java services embedding or running Eclipse Jetty, especially older bundled Jetty dependencies in products. Risk is higher when Jetty sits behind a proxy or gateway that enforces authorization and passes very large chunks unchanged.

Exploitation context

The source bundle does not show KEV listing or confirmed active exploitation. The described attack depends on intermediary and backend parsing disagreement, so practical risk is architecture-dependent rather than universal across all Jetty deployments.

Researcher notes

Key uncertainty is deployment topology. The issue requires parsing disagreement between an intermediary and Jetty. Focus validation on affected Jetty versions, RFC2616 compliance mode, and whether front-end controls pass arbitrarily large chunks without normalization.

Mitigation direction

  • Inventory direct and transitive Jetty versions in applications and vendor appliances.
  • Prioritize upgrades through Eclipse Jetty, OS, or product vendor advisories.
  • For Jetty 9.4.x, verify whether RFC2616 compliance is enabled.
  • Review proxies and gateways for strict chunked request validation.
  • Check Debian, Red Hat, Oracle, NetApp, and HPE advisories where relevant.

Validation and detection

  • Identify internet-facing or partner-facing services running affected Jetty versions.
  • Map traffic paths where authorization is enforced before Jetty.
  • Review dependency manifests for embedded Jetty artifacts and shaded jars.
  • Confirm front-end intermediaries reject malformed or oversized chunked transfers.
  • Document whether affected products are vendor-managed or locally patched.
Prepared
Confidence
medium
Sources
8

Public sources used

Generated from the cited source records. This long-tail analysis has not been individually reviewed by a named human.

Potential ATT&CK relevance

Conservative CVE-to-ATT&CK context

These mappings and lookup hints may be relevant to the vulnerability behavior, CWE, affected product, or exposure path. Glexia-inferred context is not an official MITRE, ATT&CK, CWE, or CVE Program mapping.

ATT&CK lookup starting points

Use these exact CWE pages and searches to review the Glexia ATT&CK library from this CVE's weakness and description context.

cwe · low confidence lookup

CWE-444: Exact CWE lookup

Use the exact CWE identifier as the starting point before reviewing related ATT&CK behavior. Open the exact CWE lookup page first, then review the ATT&CK searches from that MITRE weakness context. This is a Glexia lookup hint, not an official ATT&CK mapping.

Open ATT&CK lookup
cve · low confidence lookup

CVE-2017-7657 mapping review

Open the CVE-to-ATT&CK bridge for reviewed, inferred, or future official mappings tied to this CVE.

Open ATT&CK lookup
Vulnerability profileCVE Program record
Severity
Unknown
CVSS
Not scored
Known Exploited
No
Published
Official CVE source material

CNA and ADP enrichment extracted from CVE v5

These fields come from the CVE record and ADP containers, not from Glexia's Take. They preserve time-varying source decisions such as CISA SSVC, KEV status, CVSS metrics, and provider references.

0CVSS vectors
0Timeline events
0ADP providers
16Source links

CVSS and timeline data

No CVSS vectors or timeline events were available in the normalized CVE source material.

Source materials

Affected products

Products and packages named in the record

VendorProductVersion / packageStatus
The Eclipse FoundationEclipse Jettyunspecified, 9.3.0, unspecified, 9.4.0, unspecifiedListed
Weakness

CWE details

CWE-444

CWE links open Glexia weakness intelligence pages with official CWE context, developer remediation guidance, and related CVE mappings.

CWE-444 · source CWE mapping

Inconsistent Interpretation of HTTP Requests ('HTTP Request/Response Smuggling')

Inconsistent Interpretation of HTTP Requests ('HTTP Request/Response Smuggling') represents a recurring weakness pattern that can create exploitable paths when design, validation, or implementation controls are missing.

Open CWE intelligenceSame-CWE CVEs