dbcve.org
Security GuardiumApplication · Ibm

CVE-2017-1271

HIGH · 7.5 CVSS v3.0 Published 2017-12-07
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
84/100
Remediation priority · High
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
IBM Security Guardium 9.0, 9.1, and 9.5 supports interaction between multiple actors and allows those actors to negotiate which algorithm should be used as a protection mechanism such as encryption or authentication, but it does not select the strongest algorithm that is available to both parties. IBM X-Force ID: 124746.

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 confidence

IBM Security Guardium versions 9.0, 9.1, and 9.5 contains a vulnerability in the algorithm negotiation process where the system fails to automatically select the strongest available cryptographic algorithm (such as encryption or authentication mechanisms) when multiple options are available between communicating parties. This allows the system to potentially use weaker algorithms that could be vulnerable to cryptographic attacks, rather than defaulting to the most secure option both parties support.

MitigationConfigure IBM Security Guardium to enforce selection of the strongest available cryptographic algorithms during negotiation and disable support for weak or deprecated algorithms in the protocol settings.

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
Security GuardiumApplication
Affected:= 9.0= 9.1= 9.5

CVSS 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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify the installed Guardium version
    Run 'guardium_version' command or check the Guardium web UI under Administration > System > Version Information to confirm whether the version is 9.0, 9.1, or 9.5
    Affected if The installed version matches 9.0, 9.1, or 9.5 exactly
  2. Examine SSL/TLS protocol settings
    Access Guardium configuration via CLI or web UI and inspect the SSL/TLS protocol settings to determine which protocol versions (TLS 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3) are enabled or disabled
    Affected if Older protocol versions like TLS 1.0 or 1.1 are still enabled when TLS 1.2 or higher is available
  3. Review cipher suite configuration
    Check the Guardium SSL configuration for the list of enabled cipher suites - look for the presence of weak ciphers such as those using DES, 3DES, RC4, or export-grade encryption
    Affected if Weak or deprecated cipher suites are listed as enabled in the configuration
  4. Verify algorithm negotiation behavior
    Use an SSL/TLS scanning tool (such as testssl.sh or OpenSSL s_client) against the Guardium server to see which cipher and algorithm is negotiated during a connection
    Affected if The scan reveals that the system negotiates a weaker algorithm (such as a 40-bit or 56-bit cipher) when stronger options are available to the client
  5. Confirm default cipher preference settings
    Check whether Guardium is configured to prefer server-side cipher order or client-side cipher order during negotiation, and whether the strongest available algorithm is prioritized
    Affected if The system is set to prefer client cipher order or does not enforce selection of the strongest available algorithm

A user is affected if they are running Guardium version 9.0, 9.1, or 9.5 and their configuration allows negotiation of weak cryptographic algorithms or older protocol versions.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Configure IBM Security Guardium to enforce selection of the strongest available cryptographic algorithms during negotiation and disable support for weak or deprecated algorithms in the protocol settings.

Fix this in Security Guardium Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation8.0 h
  • Testing6.0 h
  • Review / QA4.0 h
22.0 hours of engineering $3,860
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-1271 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2017-1271 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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