Debian LinuxOperating system · Debian
CVE-2017-15130
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 · uneditedA denial of service flaw was found in dovecot before 2.2.34. An attacker able to generate random SNI server names could exploit TLS SNI configuration lookups, leading to excessive memory usage and the process to restart.
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 confidenceDovecot before version 2.2.34 contains a denial of service vulnerability in its TLS Server Name Indication (SNI) configuration lookup functionality. An attacker capable of sending TLS connections with arbitrary SNI hostnames can trigger excessive memory consumption during the SNI configuration lookup process, causing the dovecot process to restart.
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
Debian LinuxOperating system
= 8.0= 9.0
Ubuntu LinuxOperating system
= 14.04= 16.04= 17.10< 2.2.34CVSS 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
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/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 dovecot installation and versionRun 'dovecot --version' or check the package version with 'dpkg -l | grep dovecot' (Debian/Ubuntu) or 'rpm -qa | grep dovecot' (RHEL-based)Affected if The installed version is lower than 2.2.34
-
Confirm dovecot process is runningRun 'ps aux | grep dovecot' or check service status with 'systemctl status dovecot'Affected if Dovecot is running and the version is vulnerable (< 2.2.34)
-
Verify TLS ports are listeningRun 'netstat -tlnp | grep -E "(993|995|587)"' or 'ss -tlnp | grep -E "(993|995|587)"' to check if TLS-enabled ports are exposedAffected if Dovecot TLS ports are accessible to untrusted network actors and the version is vulnerable
-
Check SNI configuration statusReview dovecot configuration files (typically in /etc/dovecot/ or /etc/dovecot/conf.d/) for ssl SNI settings, or check if 'ssl = yes' is set in dovecot.confAffected if TLS/SSL is enabled and SNI functionality is in use with a vulnerable dovecot version
A system is affected if it runs dovecot version lower than 2.2.34 with TLS services (ports 993, 995, or 587) exposed to untrusted attackers who can send arbitrary SNI hostnames.
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 data2.2.34
Upgrade dovecot to version 2.2.34 or later. Additionally, restrict who can connect to the TLS services (ports 993, 995, 587) to limit exposure to untrusted attackers generating random SNI values.
Fix this in Debian Linux
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-15130 — 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-2017-15130 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