CVE-2017-1000415
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 · uneditedMatrixSSL version 3.7.2 has an incorrect UTCTime date range validation in its X.509 certificate validation process resulting in some certificates have their expiration (beginning) year extended (delayed) by 100 years.
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 confidenceMatrixSSL 3.7.2 contains a bug in its X.509 certificate validation where UTCTime date range validation is incorrect. The UTCTime field uses two-digit year representation, and the faulty logic causes some certificates to have their validity start year interpreted as 100 years later than intended (e.g., 2017 interpreted as 2117). This can cause valid certificates to be rejected or expired certificates to appear valid.
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= 3.7.2CVSS 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
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/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 the MatrixSSL library version in useInspect the library binary, headers, or version information file included in your deployment. Run a command to query the linked MatrixSSL library version (for example, 'strings <library_file> | grep -i matrixssl' or check version headers). Compare the detected version to the affected version 3.7.2.Affected if The detected MatrixSSL version is exactly 3.7.2
-
Confirm X.509 certificate validation is performedReview your application configuration or code to determine whether X.509 certificate validation routines from MatrixSSL are invoked. Look for function calls such as psX509VerifyCert or similar certificate verification APIs provided by MatrixSSL.Affected if Your application uses MatrixSSL functions to validate X.509 certificates and the library version is 3.7.2
-
Determine if UTCTime-encoded certificates are processedInspect the certificates being validated in your environment or test with a certificate that uses UTCTime (two-digit year) in its validity date fields. Check whether MatrixSSL processes these dates during the validation workflow.Affected if Your system validates certificates containing UTCTime date fields and the MatrixSSL library is version 3.7.2
You are affected if your deployment uses MatrixSSL version 3.7.2 and performs X.509 certificate validation on certificates containing UTCTime date fields.
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 MatrixSSL to a version that corrects the UTCTime validation logic, or implement supplementary certificate date validation as a defensive measure until the library is updated.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,328.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-1000415 — 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-2017-1000415 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