Email EncryptionApplication · Cisco
CVE-2017-12291
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 · uneditedMultiple vulnerabilities in the web interface of the Cisco Registered Envelope Service (a cloud-based service) could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to conduct a cross-site scripting (XSS) attack or redirect a user of the affected service to an undesired web page. The vulnerabilities are due to insufficient validation of user-supplied input by the web-based management interface of the affected service. An attacker could exploit these vulnerabilities by persuading a user to click a malicious link or by sending an HTTP request that could cause the affected service to redirect the request to a specified malicious URL. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to execute arbitrary script code in the context of the web interface of the affected system or allow the attacker to access sensitive browser-based information on the affected system. These types of exploits could also be used in phishing attacks that send users to malicious websites without their knowledge. Cisco Bug IDs: CSCve77195, CSCve90978, CSCvf42310, CSCvf42703, CSCvf42723, CSCvf46169, CSCvf49999.
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 confidenceMultiple XSS and open redirect vulnerabilities in the Cisco Registered Envelope Service web interface allow unauthenticated remote attackers to execute arbitrary script code in the context of the affected web interface or redirect users to malicious sites via insufficient validation of user-supplied input.
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
Email EncryptionApplication
= 5.3.0= 5.3.0-038CVSS 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 if Cisco Registered Envelope Service is in useReview service subscriptions, billing records, or network traffic logs for connections to Cisco Email Encryption or Registered Envelope Service domains. Check internal documentation for any integrations with Cisco email security products.Affected if The organization uses Cisco Registered Envelope Service as part of Cisco Email Encryption.
-
Determine the service version or patch statusContact Cisco support or your account representative to confirm the deployed version of Cisco Email Encryption and whether it has been patched for CVE-2017-12291. If you have administrative access to any client portals, check the version information displayed in the service dashboard.Affected if The service version is 5.3.0 or 5.3.0-038 and has not been updated to a patched release.
-
Verify web interface accessibilityIdentify if the Cisco Registered Envelope Service web portal (typically at envelope.cisco.com or similar domains) is accessible from your network. Document the URL endpoints used by your organization for this service.Affected if The web interface is accessible and the service remains at a vulnerable version.
-
Review web access logs for exploitation indicatorsIf proxy or firewall logs capture traffic to the Cisco Registered Envelope Service, search for unusual query parameters, JavaScript payloads, or suspicious redirect patterns in the URLs. Look for evidence of injected script tags or unusual URL redirections.Affected if Logs contain requests with XSS payloads or redirect patterns targeting the envelope service that were not generated by legitimate users.
An organization is affected if they use Cisco Registered Envelope Service and the deployed version remains at 5.3.0 or 5.3.0-038 without the Cisco-applied patch.
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 dataAs this is a cloud-based SaaS service, contact Cisco for the available patches/updates and verify the service has been updated to a patched version. Review any integrations or custom configurations that may be affected.
Fix this in Email Encryption
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation1.0 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 $1,696.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-12291 — 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-2017-12291 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