CVE-2017-1197
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) uses an inadequate account lockout setting that could allow a remote attacker to brute force account credentials. IBM X-Force ID: 123672.
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 (TEMA SUAv1 SCA SCM) contains inadequate account lockout settings that allow remote attackers to perform brute force attacks against user credentials without being locked out after multiple failed login attempts.
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.
-
Confirm installed version of IBM BigFix Security Compliance AnalyticsAccess the IBM BigFix administrative console or use the platform version reporting feature to identify the exact version number of the BigFix Security Compliance Analytics componentAffected if The installed version is exactly 1.9.70
-
Locate the account lockout policy configurationNavigate to the IBM BigFix Compliance administrative console and locate the user security or account lockout settings sectionAffected if Account lockout settings are not found or are missing from the configuration interface
-
Verify account lockout threshold configurationInspect the account lockout policy to determine if a lockout threshold is configured (e.g., number of failed attempts before lockout)Affected if No lockout threshold is set or the threshold is set to a value that effectively allows unlimited attempts (such as 0 or disabled)
-
Confirm lockout duration is configuredCheck if a lockout duration or unlock time is defined in the account lockout settingsAffected if No lockout duration is configured or account remains unlocked after failed attempts
A user is affected if IBM BigFix Security Compliance Analytics version 1.9.70 is installed AND account lockout settings are either missing, disabled, or set to allow unlimited failed login attempts.
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 appropriate account lockout thresholds (e.g., lock after 3-5 failed attempts with reasonable lockout duration) in the IBM BigFix Compliance administrative console to prevent credential brute forcing.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $2,832.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-1197 — 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-2017-1197 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