CVE-2017-1221
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 Tivoli Endpoint Manager (IBM BigFix 9.2 and 9.5) 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: 123861.
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 · moderate confidenceIBM Tivoli Endpoint Manager (IBM BigFix 9.2 and 9.5) ships with a weak or non-existent default password policy, allowing user accounts to be created with easily guessable passwords. This architectural weakness enables credential-based attacks such as brute force or dictionary attacks to succeed with minimal effort.
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= 9.2= 9.5CVSS 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 installed BigFix versionAccess the BigFix administration console or run the relevant version check command (e.g., BESAdmin utility or console 'About' section) to determine the exact version numberAffected if The installed version is 9.2 or 9.5 exactly as specified in the affected versions
-
Verify password policy configuration existsNavigate to the BigFix administration console, locate the Security or User Management settings, and inspect whether a password policy has been definedAffected if No password policy is configured or defined in the system
-
Check minimum password length requirementIn the password policy settings, verify if a minimum password length is enforced (typically 8+ characters is considered baseline)Affected if Minimum password length is not set or is set to a value below 8 characters
-
Confirm password complexity requirementsIn the password policy settings, verify if complexity requirements (such as requiring uppercase, lowercase, numbers, and special characters) are enabledAffected if Password complexity requirements are disabled or not enforced
-
Check account lockout policyIn the security settings, verify if an account lockout policy exists after failed login attemptsAffected if No account lockout policy is configured or implemented
You are affected if you are running BigFix version 9.2 or 9.5 AND the password policy is weak, absent, or does not enforce minimum length, complexity, or account lockout protections.
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 dataEnable and enforce strong password policies in the BigFix administration console, requiring minimum password length, complexity requirements, and password expiration. Consider implementing account lockout policies to further mitigate brute force attempts.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $2,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-1221 — 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-2017-1221 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