CVE-2017-0145
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 · uneditedThe SMBv1 server in Microsoft Windows Vista SP2; Windows Server 2008 SP2 and R2 SP1; Windows 7 SP1; Windows 8.1; Windows Server 2012 Gold and R2; Windows RT 8.1; and Windows 10 Gold, 1511, and 1607; and Windows Server 2016 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via crafted packets, aka "Windows SMB Remote Code Execution Vulnerability." This vulnerability is different from those described in CVE-2017-0143, CVE-2017-0144, CVE-2017-0146, and CVE-2017-0148.
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 · high confidenceThis is a remote code execution vulnerability in the SMBv1 server affecting multiple Windows versions (Vista SP2 through Windows 10/Server 2016). Attackers exploit this by sending crafted SMB packets to vulnerable systems, achieving arbitrary code execution without authentication.
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= 1.0= 13.02= 13.03= 13.20= 13.21= va10= vb10>= 4.0, < 4.0e= 5.0a= 1.0= 1.1>= 4.0, < 4.0e= 5.0aall versionsall versionsCVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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 Windows versionRun 'winver' or 'systeminfo | findstr /B /C:"OS Name" /C:"OS Version"' to determine the installed Windows version and build number.Affected if The version falls between Windows Vista SP2 and Windows Server 2016 inclusive (including Windows 7, 8, 8.1, 10, Server 2008 R2, Server 2012, Server 2012 R2).
-
Confirm SMBv1 is enabledRun 'Get-WindowsOptionalFeature -Online -FeatureName SMB1Protocol' in PowerShell, or check registry key 'HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\LanmanServer\Parameters' for 'SMB1' value (0 = disabled, 1 = enabled).Affected if SMBv1 protocol is installed and enabled (value is 1 or feature state is Enabled).
-
Verify SMBv1 server role is activeRun 'Get-SmbServerConfiguration | Select-Object EnableSMB1Protocol' to check if the SMBv1 server component is actively listening.Affected if EnableSMB1Protocol returns True, indicating the SMBv1 server is actively accepting connections.
-
For Siemens Acuson P300 devicesAccess device management interface or run firmware version check command to identify installed firmware version.Affected if Firmware version equals 13.02, 13.03, 13.20, or 13.21.
-
For Siemens Acuson P500, Sc2000, X700, or Syngo Sc2000 devicesAccess device management interface or run firmware version check command to identify installed firmware version.Affected if Firmware version is va10, vb10, falls between 4.0 and below 4.0e, equals 5.0a, or equals 1.0 or 1.1.
A system is affected if it runs a vulnerable Windows version (Vista SP2 through Server 2016) WITH SMBv1 protocol enabled, or if it is a Siemens device with one of the specific firmware versions listed.
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.
From vendor data4.0e
Disable SMBv1 protocol on all affected systems; apply Microsoft security update MS17-010; if SMBv1 is business-critical, implement network segmentation and monitoring until replacement with SMBv2/v3 is possible.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,880.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-0145 — 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 sources- portal.msrc.microsoft.com
- packetstormsecurity.com
- portal.msrc.microsoft.com
- packetstormsecurity.com
- packetstormsecurity.com
- www.securityfocus.com
- www.securitytracker.com
- cert-portal.siemens.com
- cert-portal.siemens.com
- ics-cert.us-cert.gov
- www.exploit-db.com
- www.exploit-db.com
- www.cisa.gov
- nvd.nist.gov
Practitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2017-0145 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