CVE-2017-1000001
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 · uneditedFedMsg 0.18.1 and older is vulnerable to a message validation flaw resulting in message validation not being enabled if configured to be on.
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 · moderate confidenceFedMsg versions 0.18.1 and older contain a logic flaw in message validation configuration handling. When users explicitly enable message validation via configuration, the validation is not actually enforced due to a bug in how the configuration is processed, leaving messages unvalidated despite user expectations of security controls.
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<= 0.18.1CVSS 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
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/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 FedMsg versionRun 'pip show fedmsg' or on Fedora systems 'rpm -q fedmsg' to retrieve the installed version numberAffected if The installed version is 0.18.1 or older (any version <= 0.18.1)
-
Locate FedMsg configuration fileCheck for the configuration file at /etc/fedmsg-config.py or in the directory where your FedMsg configuration is storedAffected if Configuration file exists and message validation is configured
-
Verify message validation settingOpen the configuration file and look for settings related to message validation, such as a field like 'validate' or 'msg_validator' - check if it is set to True, enabled, or contains validation parametersAffected if Message validation is explicitly enabled in the configuration (set to True, enabled, or has validation parameters defined)
-
Confirm vulnerability conditionIf FedMsg version is 0.18.1 or older AND message validation is enabled in configuration, the environment is affected by this CVEAffected if Both conditions are true: version <= 0.18.1 AND validation is explicitly enabled in config
You are affected if you run FedMsg version 0.18.1 or older and have explicitly enabled message validation in your configuration, because the validation will not actually be enforced despite being enabled.
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 dataUpgrade to a FedMsg version newer than 0.18.1 where the validation logic is properly implemented, or implement alternative message integrity checks if upgrade is not feasible.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-1000001 — 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-2017-1000001 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