CVE-2017-1223
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 could allow a remote attacker to conduct phishing attacks, using an open redirect attack. By persuading a victim to visit a specially-crafted Web site, a remote attacker could exploit this vulnerability to spoof the URL displayed to redirect a user to a malicious Web site that would appear to be trusted. This could allow the attacker to obtain highly sensitive information or conduct further attacks against the victim. IBM X-Force ID: 123902.
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 contains an open redirect vulnerability in its web interface. By crafting a malicious URL parameter, an attacker can redirect users to an arbitrary external website while making it appear to originate from the trusted IBM domain, enabling phishing attacks and credential theft.
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= 9.2.6= 9.2.7= 9.5= 9.5.5= 9.5.6CVSS 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
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/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.
-
Identify installed IBM Bigfix Platform versionOn the Bigfix server, open the BES Console or run the BES Admin tool to view the platform version. Alternatively, check the registry on Windows (HKLM\SOFTWARE\BigFix\EnterpriseServer\GlobalInfo) or check the version file in the installation directory (typically under BES\Server\BESServer.exe version info).Affected if The installed version matches exactly 9.2.6, 9.2.7, 9.5, 9.5.5, or 9.5.6
-
Confirm web interface is enabledVerify that the Bigfix Web Reports or WebUI component is installed and running. Check if the web service is listening on port 52311 (default HTTPS) or configured for web access via IIS integration.Affected if The web interface component is active and accessible to users
-
Check for external redirect parameters in web URLsInspect URLs generated by the Bigfix web interface, particularly login and redirect URLs. Look for parameters like 'redirect', 'url', or 'next' in the query string that may accept external URLs. Test by attempting a URL with an external domain in suspected redirect parameters.Affected if The web interface accepts and processes external URLs in redirect parameters without validation
You are affected if the installed Bigfix Platform version is exactly 9.2.6, 9.2.7, 9.5, 9.5.5, or 9.5.6 and the web interface is enabled and accessible.
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 dataImplement strict allowlist-based validation for all redirect parameters, verifying that target URLs are relative paths or trusted domains only. Additionally, display clear warnings when users are being redirected to external sites.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-1223 — 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-2017-1223 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