CVE-2017-11136
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. It uses RSA to exchange a secret for symmetric encryption of messages. However, the private RSA key is not only stored on the client but transmitted to the backend, too. Moreover, the key to decrypt the private key is composed of the first 32 bytes of the SHA-512 hash of the user password. But this hash is stored on the backend, too. Therefore, everyone with access to the backend database can read the transmitted secret for symmetric encryption, hence can read the communication.
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 transmits the RSA private key to the backend while using a derived key (first 32 bytes of SHA-512 of the user password) to protect it. Since the password hash is also stored on the backend, anyone with database access can derive the decryption key, decrypt the private key, and recover the symmetric encryption secret used to protect all message communications.
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
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/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 Stashcat installation and versionLocate the Stashcat application (desktop or mobile client) and check its version number. For desktop clients, this is typically in the application menu under 'About' or 'Version'. For mobile apps, check the app store listing or app settings.Affected if The installed version is 1.7.5 or lower, 0.0.80w or lower, or 0.0.86w or lower.
-
Verify client stores or transmits RSA private keysInspect the local application data storage (config files, database, or key storage) to determine if RSA private keys are stored on the client. Monitor network traffic during authentication or key setup to see if private key material is transmitted to the server.Affected if The client stores RSA private keys locally and transmits them to the backend server.
-
Check if password-derived key protects the private keyExamine how the client encrypts/protects the RSA private key before storage or transmission. The vulnerability uses the first 32 bytes of SHA-512 hash of the user password as the encryption key.Affected if The private key is protected using a key derived from the user's password (specifically the first 32 bytes of SHA-512).
-
Confirm server stores password hashesDetermine whether the backend server stores password hashes (or password-derived values) that could be used to reconstruct the decryption key used to protect the private key.Affected if The server stores password hashes that can be used to derive the same key used to encrypt the private key.
A user is affected if they use Stashcat version 1.7.5 or lower (or 0.0.80w/0.0.86w or lower) and the application's client transmits RSA private keys to the server while using password-derived keys for protection, with password hashes stored on the server.
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 dataThe cryptographic architecture must be redesigned to ensure private keys never leave the client. Implement proper key exchange protocols (e.g., ECDH) where only public keys are transmitted, and use server-independent password hashing (e.g., Argon2 or bcrypt) for authentication that cannot be used to derive encryption keys.
- Consultation24.0 h
- Implementation80.0 h
- Testing40.0 h
- Review / QA16.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $44,928.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-11136 — 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-2017-11136 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