CVE-2017-1000417
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 adopts a collision-prone OID comparison logic resulting in possible spoofing of OIDs (e.g. in ExtKeyUsage extension) on X.509 certificates.
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 flawed OID (Object Identifier) comparison implementation in its X.509 certificate validation code. The collision-prone comparison logic could allow an attacker to spoof OIDs in certificate extensions such as ExtKeyUsage, potentially bypassing certificate validation checks for key usage restrictions.
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
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/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 MatrixSSL installationSearch for MatrixSSL library files (libmatrixssl.so, libmatrixssl.a on Linux; matrixssl.dll on Windows) or check application dependencies/linked librariesAffected if MatrixSSL library is present in the environment
-
Determine MatrixSSL versionCheck the version string in the MatrixSSL library file, header files (matrixssl.h), or through the application's library version query function if availableAffected if The installed version is exactly 3.7.2
-
Verify X.509 certificate validation usageReview application code or configuration to determine if X.509 certificate validation is performed, particularly with ExtKeyUsage extension parsing enabledAffected if The application performs X.509 certificate validation using MatrixSSL with ExtKeyUsage extensions
-
Inspect OID comparison implementationIf source code is accessible, examine the OID comparison function in the certificate validation code (typically in x509.c or similar) for whether it uses length-aware binary comparison versus vulnerable string-style comparisonAffected if The OID comparison uses simple string comparison without length validation (vulnerable pattern)
-
Check for ExtKeyUsage validation bypassTest whether ExtKeyUsage OID validation can be bypassed using crafted certificates with colliding OID representationsAffected if ExtKeyUsage restrictions can be bypassed due to flawed OID comparison
The environment is affected if MatrixSSL version 3.7.2 is in use and X.509 certificate validation with ExtKeyUsage extensions is performed, particularly if the OID comparison code lacks length-aware binary comparison.
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 patched version that implements proper OID comparison (e.g., using length-aware binary comparison). If immediate upgrade is not possible, implement secondary certificate validation using a different library as a workaround.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,888.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-1000417 — 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-2017-1000417 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