Vulnerability Monitor

The vendors, products, and vulnerabilities you care about

CVE-2022-2053


When a POST request comes through AJP and the request exceeds the max-post-size limit (maxEntitySize), Undertow's AjpServerRequestConduit implementation closes a connection without sending any response to the client/proxy. This behavior results in that a front-end proxy marking the backend worker (application server) as an error state and not forward requests to the worker for a while. In mod_cluster, this continues until the next STATUS request (10 seconds intervals) from the application server updates the server state. So, in the worst case, it can result in "All workers are in error state" and mod_cluster responds "503 Service Unavailable" for a while (up to 10 seconds). In mod_proxy_balancer, it does not forward requests to the worker until the "retry" timeout passes. However, luckily, mod_proxy_balancer has "forcerecovery" setting (On by default; this parameter can force the immediate recovery of all workers without considering the retry parameter of the workers if all workers of a balancer are in error state.). So, unlike mod_cluster, mod_proxy_balancer does not result in responding "503 Service Unavailable". An attacker could use this behavior to send a malicious request and trigger server errors, resulting in DoS (denial of service). This flaw was fixed in Undertow 2.2.19.Final, Undertow 2.3.0.Alpha2.


Security Impact Summary

This vulnerability carries a HIGH severity rating with a CVSS v3.1 score of 7.5, indicating it can be exploited remotely over the network with relatively low complexity without requiring user interaction and does not require pre-existing privileges . The vulnerability impacts and availability (service disruption) for affected systems. Impacting 3 products from redhat, from redhat, from redhat organizations running these solutions should prioritize assessment and patching.

Historical Context

Reported in 2022, this vulnerability emerged during an era marked by increased sophistication in supply chain attacks, cloud infrastructure vulnerabilities, and software-as-a-service (SaaS) security challenges. Security practices during this period emphasized zero-trust architectures, container security, and API protection.


Published

2022-08-05T16:15:11.560

Last Modified

2024-11-21T07:00:14.433

Status

Modified

Source

[email protected]

Severity

CVSSv3.1: 7.5 (HIGH)

Weaknesses
  • Type: Secondary
    CWE-400
  • Type: Primary
    CWE-400

Affected Vendors & Products
Type Vendor Product Version/Range Vulnerable?
Application redhat integration_camel_k - Yes
Application redhat jboss_fuse 7.0.0 Yes
Application redhat undertow < 2.2.19 Yes
Application redhat undertow 2.3.0 Yes

References

How SecUtils Interprets This CVE

SecUtils normalizes and enriches National Vulnerability Database (NVD) records by standardizing vendor and product identifiers, aggregating vulnerability metadata from both NVD and MITRE sources, and providing structured context for security teams. For redhat's affected products, we extract Common Platform Enumeration (CPE) data, Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) classifications, CVSS severity metrics, and reference data to enable rapid vulnerability prioritization and asset correlation. This record contains no exploit code, proof-of-concept instructions, or attack methodologies—only defensive intelligence necessary for patch management, risk assessment, and security operations.