CVE-2017-10616
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 ifmap service that comes bundled with Juniper Networks Contrail releases uses hard coded credentials. Affected releases are Contrail releases 2.2 prior to 2.21.4; 3.0 prior to 3.0.3.4; 3.1 prior to 3.1.4.0; 3.2 prior to 3.2.5.0. CVE-2017-10616 and CVE-2017-10617 can be chained together and have a combined CVSSv3 score of 5.8 (CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N).
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 confidenceThe ifmap service bundled with Juniper Contrail releases contains hardcoded credentials, allowing unauthorized network-based access to the service. This is a direct authentication bypass vulnerability where static credentials are embedded in the software code. The vulnerability affects Contrail versions 2.2.x prior to 2.21.4, 3.0.x prior to 3.0.3.4, 3.1.x prior to 3.1.4.0, and 3.2.x prior to 3.2.5.0.
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= 2.2= 3.0= 3.1= 3.2CVSS 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
- Low
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/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 if Juniper Contrail is installedLook for Contrail packages or services on the system. Common commands: dpkg -l | grep contrail, rpm -qa | grep contrail, or ls /opt/contrail/Affected if Contrail software is present on the system
-
Determine the installed Contrail versionRun command to check the Contrail version, such as: contrail-version, or check /usr/share/contrail/contrail-version, or look in package manager listings for contrail versionAffected if The version falls within the affected ranges: 2.2.x prior to 2.21.4, 3.0.x prior to 3.0.3.4, 3.1.x prior to 3.1.4.0, or 3.2.x prior to 3.2.5.0
-
Verify if the ifmap service is enabled and runningCheck for ifmap service process: ps aux | grep ifmap, or systemctl status ifmap, or check /etc/init.d/ifmap*Affected if The ifmap service is running or enabled on the system
-
Check network exposure of the ifmap service portIdentify the ifmap port (commonly 8443 or 8444) and check if it is listening on non-localhost: netstat -tlnp | grep -E '844[34]', or ss -tlnp | grep -E '844[34]'Affected if The ifmap service port is listening on a network interface accessible from untrusted networks
A system is affected if it runs any Contrail version 2.2.x, 3.0.x, 3.1.x, or 3.2.x below the patched thresholds AND has the ifmap service exposed on the network.
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 Contrail 2.21.4, 3.0.3.4, 3.1.4.0, or 3.2.5.0 or later to obtain patched ifmap service with credential management. If upgrading is not immediately feasible, implement network segmentation to restrict access to the ifmap service port.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $2,752.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-10616 — 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-2017-10616 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