CVE-2017-10955
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 · uneditedThis vulnerability allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code on vulnerable installations of EMC Data Protection Advisor 6.3.0. Authentication is required to exploit this vulnerability. The specific flaw exists within the EMC DPA Application service, which listens on TCP port 9002 by default. When parsing the preScript parameter, the process does not properly validate a user-supplied string before using it to execute a system call. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to execute arbitrary code under the context of SYSTEM. Was ZDI-CAN-4697. NOTE: Dell EMC disputes that this is a vulnerability
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 confidenceIn EMC Data Protection Advisor 6.3.0, the DPA Application service on TCP port 9002 does not properly validate the preScript parameter before passing it to a system call, allowing an authenticated attacker to inject arbitrary commands and execute code with SYSTEM privileges.
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= 6.3.0CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/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.
-
Identify installed DPA versionCheck the installed version of EMC Data Protection Advisor using the product's built-in version check, installation logs, or product UI About sectionAffected if The installed version is exactly 6.3.0
-
Verify DPA Application service is runningCheck if the DPA Application service is listening on TCP port 9002 using netstat or similar network scanning tool: 'netstat -an | grep 9002' or 'nmap -p 9002 <target>'Affected if The DPA Application service is accessible on TCP port 9002
-
Confirm authentication mechanismDetermine if the DPA web interface or API is accessible and requires authentication - the vulnerability requires an authenticated attackerAffected if DPA is accessible with valid credentials or has authentication enabled
-
Check for preScript parameter exposureReview DPA configuration or API endpoints for any functionality that accepts a preScript parameter - this is the vulnerable parameterAffected if Any DPA endpoint accepts and processes a preScript parameter without proper validation
A user is affected if running EMC Data Protection Advisor version 6.3.0 with the DPA Application service accessible on TCP port 9002 and the preScript parameter functionality exposed.
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 input validation on the preScript parameter to ensure only expected/allowlisted values are accepted before constructing any system calls; alternatively, refactor to avoid system call invocation with user-supplied input entirely.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-10955 — 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-2017-10955 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