CVE-2017-11497
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 · uneditedStack buffer overflow in hasplms in Gemalto ACC (Admin Control Center), all versions ranging from HASP SRM 2.10 to Sentinel LDK 7.50, allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via language packs containing filenames longer than 1024 characters.
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 confidenceStack buffer overflow vulnerability in the hasplms service of Gemalto ACC (Admin Control Center). The overflow occurs when processing language packs containing filenames exceeding 1024 characters, allowing remote attackers to overwrite stack memory and execute arbitrary code.
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= 2.10= 3.0= 7.1= 7.50CVSS 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
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/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 if hasplms service is runningCheck running processes for 'hasplms' or review service status on the system (e.g., tasklist/servicename on Windows, ps aux on Linux)Affected if The hasplms service is actively running - this is the vulnerable component
-
Determine installed Sentinel LDK versionQuery the installed Sentinel LDK RTE version via system inventory, installed programs list, or vendor-specific tooling (e.g., 'hasplms -v' or check registry/program files on Windows)Affected if Installed version equals 2.10, 3.0, 7.1, or 7.50 exactly - these are the known affected versions
-
Verify language pack processing capabilityCheck if language pack feature is enabled or if any language pack files exist in the hasplms installation directory (look for .lng, .pak, or language pack related files/folders)Affected if Language pack processing is available or language pack files are present in the hasplms configuration
-
Inspect language pack filename lengthsExamine any installed language pack files and their associated filenames - check if any filenames exceed 1024 characters in lengthAffected if A language pack file with a filename exceeding 1024 characters exists in the system
Environment is affected if Sentinel LDK RTE version 2.10, 3.0, 7.1, or 7.50 is installed, the hasplms service is running, and language pack processing with filenames over 1024 characters is possible.
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 vendor patch/update to Sentinel LDK version beyond 7.50. If patching is delayed, restrict network access to the hasplms service and implement input validation on language pack filenames before processing.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-11497 — 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-2017-11497 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