CVE-2017-10669
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 · uneditedSignature Wrapping exists in OSCI-Transport 1.2 as used in OSCI Transport Library 1.6.1 (Java) and OSCI Transport Library 1.6 (.NET). An attacker with access to unencrypted OSCI protocol messages must send crafted protocol messages with duplicate IDs.
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 confidenceThis is a signature wrapping vulnerability in OSCI-Transport libraries (Java 1.6.1 and .NET 1.6). Attackers can bypass XML signature verification by sending crafted messages containing duplicate ID attributes, allowing them to inject modified content while the original signature remains mathematically 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= 1.6= 1.6.1CVSS 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
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/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 Xoev Osci Transport Library usageSearch your project dependencies for 'xoev' or 'osci-transport' library. In Java, check pom.xml or build.gradle. In .NET, check packages.config or .csproj for Xoev.OsciTransport package references.Affected if The library is present in your dependencies and is being used to process XML messages.
-
Determine the installed versionFor Java: examine the pom.xml or check the JAR file version. For .NET: check the NuGet package version installed. Compare the version number against 1.6 and 1.6.1.Affected if The library version is exactly 1.6 or 1.6.1.
-
Confirm XML signature verification is enabledInspect your application configuration files and code for XML signature verification settings. Look for configuration keys related to signature validation, such as enableSignatureVerification, validateSignatures, or similar flags in your OSCI Transport configuration.Affected if XML signature verification is enabled and the application processes signed XML messages.
-
Check if application processes external XML messagesReview your application code to determine if it receives and processes OSCI-Transport XML messages from external sources. Look for endpoints or handlers that accept OSCI messages.Affected if The application processes incoming OSCI-Transport XML messages from external parties.
You are affected if you use Xoev Osci Transport Library version 1.6 or 1.6.1 and process signed XML messages from external sources with signature verification 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 dataImplement strict XML schema validation to reject messages with duplicate IDs, and enhance signature verification to validate element uniqueness before processing signatures.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing10.0 h
- Review / QA6.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $9,504.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-10669 — 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-2017-10669 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