CVE-2017-1093
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 · uneditedIBM AIX 6.1, 7.1, and 7.2 could allow a local user to exploit a vulnerability in the bellmail binary to gain root privileges.
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 confidenceA local privilege escalation vulnerability in the bellmail binary on IBM AIX 6.1, 7.1, and 7.2 allows an unprivileged local user to exploit the bellmail utility to gain root privileges. The vulnerability stems from improper handling or privilege escalation logic within the bellmail program.
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= 6.1= 7.1= 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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.
-
Verify AIX versionRun 'oslevel -s' or 'lsattr -El sys0 -a oslevel' to determine the installed AIX versionAffected if The version shown is 6.1, 7.1, or 7.2 (any release within these major.minor versions)
-
Locate the bellmail binaryRun 'which bellmail' or 'find /usr -name bellmail -type f 2>/dev/null' to find the binaryAffected if The bellmail binary exists on the system at any location (typically /usr/bin/bellmail or /usr/sbin/bellmail)
-
Check bellmail file permissionsRun 'ls -la /usr/bin/bellmail' or 'ls -la $(which bellmail)' to view ownership and permissionsAffected if The binary is owned by root and has the setuid bit set (permissions show 'rwsr-xr-x' or similar with owner root)
-
Verify setuid root statusRun 'find /usr -name bellmail -perm -4000 -user root 2>/dev/null' to specifically check for setuid root binaryAffected if The bellmail binary is found with setuid root permissions (allows execution with root privileges)
If the system runs AIX 6.1, 7.1, or 7.2 AND the bellmail binary exists with setuid root permissions, the environment is vulnerable to CVE-2017-1093 privilege escalation.
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 dataApply the IBM AIX security patch for CVE-2017-1093 from IBM support. If bellmail is not required, remove or restrict the binary to prevent exploitation.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,408.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-1093 — 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-2017-1093 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