CVE-2017-12422
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 · uneditedNetApp StorageGRID Webscale 10.2.x before 10.2.2.3, 10.3.x before 10.3.0.4, and 10.4.x before 10.4.0.2 allow remote authenticated users to delete arbitrary objects via unspecified vectors.
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 confidenceNetApp StorageGRID Webscale contains a broken access control vulnerability where authenticated users can delete arbitrary objects outside their authorized scope. This appears to be an improper authorization check allowing privilege escalation for object deletion operations.
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= 10.2= 10.2.1= 10.2.2= 10.2.2.2= 10.3.0= 10.3.0.3= 10.4.0= 10.4.0.1CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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 StorageGRID Webscale versionUse the StorageGRID Grid Manager or run 'sudo storagegrid --version' or check the support bundle for version informationAffected if The installed version matches any of: 10.2, 10.2.1, 10.2.2, 10.2.2.2, 10.3.0, 10.3.0.3, 10.4.0, or 10.4.0.1
-
Verify user authentication is enabledCheck that the StorageGRID system has user authentication configured and active through the Grid Manager under Identity and Access ManagementAffected if Users can authenticate to the system (required condition for exploitation)
-
Review bucket or container access policiesInspect the S3 or Swift bucket policies and tenant group permissions using the StorageGRID Tenant Manager or Grid ManagerAffected if There are cross-tenant or cross-user permission configurations that grant users delete access to objects outside their own tenant/bucket
You are affected if your StorageGRID Webscale version is one of the listed vulnerable versions and authenticated users with limited permissions can potentially delete objects outside their authorized scope.
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 dataApply the vendor-supplied patches: upgrade to StorageGRID 10.2.2.3+, 10.3.0.4+, or 10.4.0.2+ to address the authorization bypass.
- 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-2017-12422 — 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-2017-12422 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