CVE-2017-0912
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 · uneditedUbiquiti UCRM versions 2.5.0 to 2.7.7 are vulnerable to Stored Cross-site Scripting. Due to the lack sanitization, it is possible to inject arbitrary HTML code by manipulating the uploaded filename. Successful exploitation requires valid credentials to an account with "Edit" access to "Scheduling".
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 confidenceUbiquiti UCRM versions 2.5.0 to 2.7.7 contain a stored cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the Scheduling module's file upload functionality. Due to insufficient sanitization of the uploaded filename parameter, an attacker with valid credentials and Edit access can inject arbitrary HTML or JavaScript code by crafting a malicious filename. When other users view the scheduling interface, the unsanitized filename is rendered, causing the injected script to execute in their browsers.
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>= 2.5.0, <= 2.7.7CVSS 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
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
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 installed UCRM versionLocate the UCRM version number in the system administration panel or about page of the application. This is typically found under Settings > System > About or a similar administrative section.Affected if The installed version falls within the range 2.5.0 to 2.7.7 (inclusive).
-
Verify Scheduling module is activeAccess the UCRM dashboard and navigate to the Scheduling module to confirm it is enabled and accessible in the deployment.Affected if The Scheduling module is present and active in the application.
-
Check for file uploads in SchedulingWithin the Scheduling module, locate the file upload functionality. Review any existing uploaded files and their associated metadata, particularly the filename field.Affected if File uploads have been performed in the Scheduling module and filenames are stored without sanitization.
-
Inspect stored filename valuesExamine the database or UI display where uploaded file filenames are rendered. Look for any filenames containing HTML tags (< >) or JavaScript script tags that would indicate exploitation.Affected if Stored filenames contain unescaped HTML or script content that would execute when rendered in the browser.
The environment is potentially affected if the installed UCRM version is between 2.5.0 and 2.7.7 inclusive and the Scheduling module with file upload functionality is in use, as the filename parameter is not sanitized before display.
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 dataSanitize all user-supplied filename input in the Scheduling module by stripping or encoding HTML/script tags before storage and display. Implement output encoding when rendering filenames in the UI.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 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 $2,272.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-0912 — 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 sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2017-0912 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