CVE-2017-11506
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 · uneditedWhen linking a Nessus scanner or agent to Tenable.io or other manager, Nessus 6.x before 6.11 does not verify the manager's TLS certificate when making the initial outgoing connection. This could allow man-in-the-middle 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 confidenceNessus scanner and agent versions 6.x before 6.11 fail to validate the TLS certificate of Tenable.io or other manager during the initial outgoing connection setup, enabling man-in-the-middle attackers to intercept or impersonate the manager.
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= 6.0.0= 6.0.1= 6.0.2= 6.1.0= 6.1.1= 6.1.2= 6.2.0= 6.2.1= 6.3.0= 6.3.1= 6.3.2= 6.3.3CVSS 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
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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.
-
Determine installed Nessus versionCheck the running Nessus version through the web interface (Help > About) or by running 'nessusd -v' or checking the installed packageAffected if The version matches any of the following: 6.0.0, 6.0.1, 6.0.2, 6.1.0, 6.1.1, 6.1.2, 6.2.0, 6.2.1, 6.3.0, 6.3.1, 6.3.2, or 6.3.3
-
Confirm manager connectivity is configuredInspect the Nessus configuration for connections to Tenable.io or other managers. Check if a manager host is defined in the Nessus settingsAffected if Nessus is configured to connect to Tenable.io or any external manager for synchronization or reporting
-
Verify TLS certificate validation is absentReview the connection settings or logs related to manager communication. Look for configuration that controls SSL/TLS certificate verification during initial manager handshakeAffected if Certificate validation is disabled or not enforced for outbound manager connections
You are affected if your installed Nessus version is 6.0.0 through 6.3.3 AND the scanner is configured to connect to Tenable.io or another manager without proper TLS certificate validation.
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 dataUpgrade Nessus to version 6.11 or later which implements proper TLS certificate verification. Ensure managers use valid, trusted TLS certificates.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing1.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,424.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-11506 — 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-2017-11506 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