Email EncryptionApplication · Cisco
CVE-2017-12292
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 stem from insufficient validation of user-supplied input. An unauthenticated, remote attacker can exploit these by tricking users into clicking malicious links or sending crafted HTTP requests, enabling arbitrary script execution in the browser context or redirection to attacker-controlled sites.
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 use of Cisco Registered Envelope ServiceDetermine if your organization uses Cisco Email Encryption or Cisco Registered Envelope Service (CRES) by reviewing SaaS subscriptions, service catalogs, or contacting your Cisco account teamAffected if If the service is in use, proceed to version check; otherwise not affected by this CVE
-
Check the deployed service versionLog into the Cisco Email Encryption admin portal or CRES management console and locate the version information, typically found in About, Settings, or System Information pagesAffected if If the version is 5.3.0 or 5.3.0-038, the environment is running the affected release
-
Verify web interface accessibilityAttempt to access the CRES web portal URL (commonly at *.res.cisco.com or your organization's configured envelope service endpoint) to confirm the interface is reachableAffected if If the web interface is accessible and version is affected, the XSS and open redirect vulnerabilities can be exploited
-
Review proxy and web logs for malicious URL patternsSearch web proxy logs, WAF logs, or IIS/Apache access logs for requests containing script tags, javascript:, or suspicious redirect parameters (e.g., url=, redirect=) targeting the CRES domainAffected if If such patterns are found, this may indicate exploitation attempts against the vulnerability
Your organization is affected if you use Cisco Email Encryption version 5.3.0 or 5.3.0-038 and the CRES web interface is accessible to users, as the XSS and open redirect flaws exist in that specific version of the cloud service.
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, the fix must be applied by Cisco. Users should avoid clicking untrusted links. Organizations should monitor Cisco's service updates and notify users of the phishing risk until the vulnerability is patched.
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-2017-12292 — 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-2017-12292 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