CVE-2017-1122
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 Security Guardium 8.2, 9.0, and 10.0 contains a vulnerability that could allow a local attacker with CLI access to inject arbitrary commands which would be executed as root. IBM X-Force ID: 121174.
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 confidenceIBM Security Guardium versions 8.2, 9.0, and 10.0 contain a command injection vulnerability in the CLI that allows a local attacker with CLI access to execute arbitrary commands with root privileges. This is a privilege escalation vulnerability where insufficient input validation in CLI command processing enables command injection.
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= 8.2= 9.0= 9.1= 9.5= 10.0= 10.0.1= 10.1= 10.1.2CVSS 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
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/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 Guardium installation versionUse the CLI command 'show version' or check theGuardium installation through the web UI under System Setup > System > System Information to determine the exact version number.Affected if The installed version is 8.2, 9.0, 9.1, 9.5, 10.0, 10.0.1, 10.1, or 10.1.2.
-
Confirm CLI access is enabledVerify whether the Guardium CLI interface is accessible and active. This can typically be done through SSH connectivity to the Guardium appliance on port 22 or by checking the CLI service status from within the appliance.Affected if CLI access is enabled and the appliance is reachable via SSH or console.
-
Review CLI user access permissionsCheck the configured CLI users and their privilege levels using 'show cli-user' or 'show users' commands within the Guardium CLI to identify accounts with CLI access.Affected if Multiple users or untrusted accounts have CLI access, particularly non-administrator accounts that should not have command execution privileges.
-
Audit recent CLI command historyIf logging is enabled, review CLI command logs or audit trails for suspicious or unexpected commands that may indicate exploitation attempts, especially commands involving shell execution or privilege escalation.Affected if Unusual or unauthorized commands appear in the CLI history, particularly those involving shell operators or system modifications.
A Guardium installation is affected if it runs version 8.2, 9.0, 9.1, 9.5, 10.0, 10.0.1, 10.1, or 10.1.2 and has CLI access enabled for users who should not have elevated command execution capabilities.
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 dataRestrict CLI access to trusted personnel only, apply vendor patches when available, and implement least-privilege access controls. Consider network segmentation to limit who can access the CLI interface.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing8.0 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 $8,448.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-1122 — 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-2017-1122 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