CVE-2017-1196
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 BigFix Compliance (TEMA SUAv1 SCA SCM) 1.9.70 does not require that users should have strong passwords by default, which makes it easier for attackers to compromise user accounts. IBM X-Force ID: 123671.
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 BigFix Compliance version 1.9.70 does not enforce strong password requirements by default, allowing users to set weak passwords that are susceptible to brute-force or credential-stuffing attacks. This default configuration flaw enables attackers to more easily compromise user accounts and gain unauthorized access to the compliance platform.
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= 1.9.70CVSS 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 the installed version of IBM BigFix Security Compliance AnalyticsLocate the installed version of the IBM BigFix Security Compliance Analytics software in your environment. This is typically found in the product's about page, installation directory, or version information panel within the application console.Affected if The installed version is exactly 1.9.70, which is the affected version cited in this CVE.
-
Verify whether strong password policy enforcement is enabledAccess the IBM BigFix Compliance administrative console or settings panel and inspect the password policy configuration. Look for options related to password complexity requirements, minimum length, and enforcement settings.Affected if Strong password policies are not enabled or configured, meaning users can set weak passwords that bypass complexity requirements.
-
Confirm the default configuration stateReview the initial setup or default configuration settings for the IBM BigFix Compliance platform to determine if password strength controls were enforced at deployment time.Affected if The default configuration allows weak passwords to be set without requiring uppercase letters, numbers, special characters, or minimum length requirements.
You are affected if your installed version is IBM BigFix Security Compliance Analytics 1.9.70 AND strong password policies are not configured or enforced in your environment, allowing weak passwords to be accepted.
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 dataConfigure and enforce strong password policies within IBM BigFix Compliance, including minimum length, complexity requirements, and password expiration settings. Ensure default passwords are changed during initial setup.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,408.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-1196 — 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-2017-1196 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