CVE-2017-11130
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 · uneditedAn issue was discovered in heinekingmedia StashCat through 1.7.5 for Android, through 0.0.80w for Web, and through 0.0.86 for Desktop. The product's protocol only tries to ensure confidentiality. In the whole protocol, no integrity or authenticity checks are done. Therefore man-in-the-middle attackers can conduct replay attacks.
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 confidenceStashCat messenger through multiple platforms implements a protocol that only provides confidentiality (encryption) without any integrity or authenticity checks. This allows man-in-the-middle attackers to intercept communications and conduct replay attacks by re-sending previously captured messages, as the protocol cannot detect tampering or verify message origin.
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<= 1.7.5<= 0.0.80w<= 0.0.86wCVSS 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
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/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 StashCat installationSearch for StashCat (Stashcat, Heinekingmedia) executable or application files on the system. Common locations: Program Files (Windows), /Applications (macOS), or package directories (Linux).Affected if StashCat messenger is installed on the system
-
Determine installed versionLocate and read version information from the StashCat application - typically found in About dialog, application metadata, or version file within the installation directory.Affected if Version cannot be determined or is older than the affected releases
-
Compare against affected version rangesCheck if the installed version falls within any of these vulnerable ranges: 1.7.5 or earlier (primary version), 0.0.80w or earlier, or 0.0.86w or earlier.Affected if Installed version is less than or equal to 1.7.5, 0.0.80w, or 0.0.86w
-
Verify active use of the applicationConfirm whether the StashCat application is actively used or configured for communications on the network. Check for running processes, configured accounts, or scheduled tasks.Affected if StashCat is actively used for messaging communications
A user is affected if StashCat Heinekingmedia version 1.7.5 or earlier, 0.0.80w or earlier, or 0.0.86w or earlier is installed and used for communications, due to the protocol lacking integrity and authenticity protections.
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 cryptographic integrity checks (e.g., HMAC) and authentication mechanisms (e.g., digital signatures or authenticated encryption) across all protocol communications, along with replay protection using nonces, sequence numbers, or timestamps.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation40.0 h
- Testing16.0 h
- Review / QA8.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $20,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-11130 — 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-2017-11130 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