CVE-2017-1224
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 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 123903.
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confidenceIBM Tivoli Endpoint Manager implements weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms (such as weak ciphers or outdated hashing), allowing an attacker with network access to potentially decrypt sensitive data that was encrypted using these weak methods.
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
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/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 the installed Bigfix Platform versionCheck the version file typically located at C:\Program Files\BigFix Enterprise\BES Server\version.txt, or run 'BESAdmin.exe -version' from the server bin directory, or view the version in the Bigfix Console under Help > About Bigfix ServerAffected if The installed version matches exactly 9.2.6, 9.2.7, 9.5, 9.5.5, or 9.5.6
-
Locate the server configuration file controlling SSL/TLS ciphersOpen the BES Server configuration file (typically bfserver.xml or register.xml in the BES Server directory) and search for entries containing cipher, ssl, or tls configuration settingsAffected if The configuration file contains references to weak cipher suites (such as SSLv3, TLS 1.0, or known weak ciphers like export-grade ciphers or those with less than 128-bit strength)
-
Test for weak cipher support via network scanUse an SSL/TLS scanning tool such as nmap with the script 'ssl-enum-ciphers' against the Bigfix server port (default 52311), or use OpenSSL: 'openssl s_client -connect <server>:52311 -cipher 'EXPORT'' to test if export-grade or weak ciphers are acceptedAffected if The scan reveals that the server accepts weak or deprecated protocols (SSLv3, TLS 1.0) or low-strength ciphers (below 128-bit)
You are affected if your Bigfix Platform version is exactly 9.2.6, 9.2.7, 9.5, 9.5.5, or 9.5.6 AND weak cryptographic algorithms are enabled or accepted by the server.
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 dataUpdate to the latest version of IBM Tivoli Endpoint Manager that addresses the weak cryptographic implementation, or disable support for weak cryptographic algorithms in the product configuration.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-1224 — 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-2017-1224 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