Skip to content

CVE-2017-5664

Is CVE-2017-5664 real, exploitable, or a false positive? Here's the community verdict.

Community verdict: No field verdicts yet. Be the first practitioner to weigh in.

signals

public sources

Exploited in wild
Not listed
CISA KEV
Public exploit
None known
Metasploit/EDB/PoC
Base severity
7.5 High
CVSS
Exploitation prob.
17%
FIRST EPSS
Weakness
CWE-755
CWE

Moderate signals. Triage by your actual exposure and reachability.

baseline read

auto · not a community verdict

Low signal — verdict needed

Few public signals point to active risk. Whether a scanner hit here is a true or false positive depends on your version and config — community verdicts decide.

Based on CVSS · FIRST EPSS

Confirm or dispute →

CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N

The error page mechanism of the Java Servlet Specification requires that, when an error occurs and an error page is configured for the error that occurred, the original request and response are forwarded to the error page. This means that the request is presented to the error page with the original HTTP method. If the error page is a static file, expected behaviour is to serve content of the file as if processing a GET request, regardless of the actual HTTP method. The Default Servlet in Apache Tomcat 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.0.M20, 8.5.0 to 8.5.14, 8.0.0.RC1 to 8.0.43 and 7.0.0 to 7.0.77 did not do this. Depending on the original request this could lead to unexpected and undesirable results for static error pages including, if the DefaultServlet is configured to permit writes, the replacement or removal of the custom error page. Notes for other user provided error pages: (1) Unless explicitly coded otherwise, JSPs ignore the HTTP method. JSPs used as error pages must must ensure that they handle any error dispatch as a GET request, regardless of the actual method. (2) By default, the response generated by a Servlet does depend on the HTTP method. Custom Servlets used as error pages must ensure that they handle any error dispatch as a GET request, regardless of the actual method.

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2017-5664
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2017-5664/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2017-5664)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2017-5664"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2017-5664/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2017-5664"></a>

Live badge that updates automatically as the community verdict changes.

Community ground truth

Be the first practitioner to weigh in

So far this is only TruePositive's editorial baseline from public sources. Add your real-world verdict below — it becomes the signal the next person triaging this relies on.

🥇 The first 50 practitioners to contribute earn a Founding Contributor badge.

In your experience, is this finding real and exploitable?

awaiting field verdicts
Real, but not a risk here
Not a real issue

No account needed. Anonymous verdicts post as an unverified signal. Log in to make yours verified and earn reputation.

Field notes & remediation

Verdicts are the quick signal. Notes are the evidence and fixes behind them.

No notes yet. Be the first to share what you saw, or a fix that worked.

    Add a field note or remediationoptional
    Note type

    What are you adding?

    Markdown supported · minimum 20 characters.

    Same weakness: CWE-755.