CVE-2017-12699
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 · uneditedAn Incorrect Default Permissions issue was discovered in AzeoTech DAQFactory versions prior to 17.1. Local, non-administrative users may be able to replace or modify original application files with malicious ones.
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 confidenceAzeoTech DAQFactory versions prior to 17.1 shipped with overly permissive default file permissions on the application directory and executables. This allowed any local user to modify, replace, or inject malicious files into the application installation path, potentially enabling privilege escalation to administrator/SYSTEM level when the application runs or is restarted.
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<= 16.3CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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.
-
Find DAQFactory installation pathCheck common installation locations such as C:\Program Files\AzeoTech\DAQFactory or C:\Program Files (x86)\AzeoTech\DAQFactory. Also check for the executable DAQFactory.exe in these locations.Affected if DAQFactory is found installed on the system
-
Determine installed DAQFactory versionRight-click on DAQFactory.exe, select Properties, then look at the Details tab for the Product Version. Alternatively, check the version info in the program's About or Help menu when running DAQFactory.Affected if The version number is 16.3 or lower (any version prior to 17.1)
-
Check write permissions on the DAQFactory installation directoryOpen Command Prompt and run: icacls "C:\Program Files\AzeoTech\DAQFactory" (adjust path if different). Examine the output for entries granting Write or Full Control to non-admin users such as Users, Everyone, or authenticated users.Affected if Non-administrator accounts (such as Users group, Everyone, or standard user accounts) have Write or Full Control permissions to the installation directory
A system is affected if DAQFactory version 16.3 or lower is installed AND non-administrator users have write access to the application directory, allowing potential privilege escalation.
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 dataUpgrade to DAQFactory version 17.1 or later which corrects the default permissions. If immediate upgrade is not feasible, manually restrict write permissions on the DAQFactory installation directory to only administrators and the SYSTEM account.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $1,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-12699 — 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-2017-12699 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