CVE-2017-13079
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 · uneditedWi-Fi Protected Access (WPA and WPA2) that supports IEEE 802.11w allows reinstallation of the Integrity Group Temporal Key (IGTK) during the four-way handshake, allowing an attacker within radio range to spoof frames from access points to clients.
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 confidenceThis is a Key Reinstallation Attack (KRACK) affecting WPA/WPA2 with IEEE 802.11w support. The vulnerability allows reinstallation of the Integrity Group Temporal Key (IGTK) during the four-way handshake, enabling an attacker within radio range to spoof frames from access points to clients.
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= 14.04= 16.04= 17.04= 8.0= 9.0all versions= 10= 10.4= 11= 11.1= 7= 7= 42.2= 42.3= 0.2.4= 0.2.5= 0.2.6= 0.2.8= 0.3.7= 0.3.9= 0.3.10= 0.3.11= 0.4.7= 0.4.8= 0.4.9= 0.4.10= 0.2.4= 0.2.5= 0.2.6= 0.2.7= 0.2.8= 0.3.7= 0.3.8= 0.3.9= 0.3.10= 0.3.11= 0.4.7= 0.4.8CVSS 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
- Adjacent
- Complexity
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/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.
-
Identify wpa_supplicant versionRun 'wpa_supplicant -v' or 'dpkg -l wpa_supplicant' to get the installed version numberAffected if The version matches one of the listed affected versions: 0.2.4-0.2.8, 0.3.7-0.3.11, or 0.4.7-0.4.8
-
Identify hostapd versionRun 'hostapd -v' or 'dpkg -l hostapd' to get the installed version numberAffected if The version matches one of the listed affected versions: 0.2.4-0.2.6, 0.2.8, 0.3.7, 0.3.9-0.3.11, or 0.4.7-0.4.10
-
Check if 802.11w is enabled in wpa_supplicant configExamine the wpa_supplicant configuration file (typically /etc/wpa_supplicant.conf or /etc/wpa_supplicant/wpa_supplicant.conf) for 'pmf=1' or 'pmf=2' settingsAffected if The configuration shows 'pmf=1' (optional) or 'pmf=2' (required), indicating IEEE 802.11w protected management frames are enabled
-
Check if 802.11w is enabled in hostapd configExamine the hostapd configuration file (typically in /etc/hostapd/) for 'ieee80211w=1' or 'ieee80211w=2' settingsAffected if The configuration shows 'ieee80211w=1' or 'ieee80211w=2', indicating the access point has 802.11w support enabled
-
Check OS version for affected Linux distributionsRun 'cat /etc/os-release' or 'lsb_release -a' to identify the distribution versionAffected if Running Ubuntu 14.04, 16.04, or 17.04; Debian 8.0 or 9.0; RHEL 7; or OpenSUSE Leap 42.2 or 42.3, and using the associated vulnerable wpa_supplicant/hostapd packages
You are affected if your system runs a vulnerable version of wpa_supplicant or hostapd (as listed) AND has IEEE 802.11w (PMF) enabled in the wireless configuration, allowing a nearby attacker to perform the IGTK reinstallation attack.
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 vendor-specific patches to affected access points and client devices. Where patches are unavailable, consider using WPA3, network segmentation, or enforcing VPN usage as compensating controls.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation10.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $7,392.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-13079 — 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 sources- lists.opensuse.org
- lists.opensuse.org
- lists.opensuse.org
- www.arubanetworks.com
- www.debian.org
- www.kb.cert.org
- www.securityfocus.com
- www.securitytracker.com
- www.securitytracker.com
- www.securitytracker.com
- www.securitytracker.com
- www.securitytracker.com
- www.securitytracker.com
- www.ubuntu.com
- access.redhat.com
- security.FreeBSD.org
- support.lenovo.com
- tools.cisco.com
- w1.fi
- www.krackattacks.com
- www.oracle.com
- cert-portal.siemens.com
- cert.vde.com
- lists.debian.org
- security.gentoo.org
- source.android.com
- support.hpe.com
- nvd.nist.gov
Practitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2017-13079 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