CVE-2017-15533
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 · uneditedSymantec SSL Visibility (SSLV) 3.8.4FC, 3.10 prior to 3.10.4.1, 3.11, and 3.12 prior to 3.12.2.1 are vulnerable to the Return of the Bleichenbacher Oracle Threat (ROBOT) attack. All affected SSLV versions act as weak oracles according the oracle classification used in the ROBOT research paper. A remote attacker, who has captured a pre-recorded SSL session inspected by SSLV, can establish multiple millions of crafted SSL connections to the target and obtain the session keys required to decrypt the pre-recorded SSL session.
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 confidenceSymantec SSL Visibility appliances running affected versions contain a variant of the Bleichenbacher oracle vulnerability (ROBOT). The device acts as a weak oracle during RSA key exchange, allowing a remote attacker who has captured a pre-recorded SSL session inspected by SSLV to send millions of crafted SSL connections and deduce the session keys needed to decrypt the captured traffic.
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= 3.8.4fc= 3.10= 3.11= 3.12CVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify the SSL Visibility appliance model and firmware versionAccess the appliance admin console or CLI and run the command to display system version information (typically 'show version' or available via web UI under System > Status)Affected if The displayed firmware version matches 3.8.4fc, 3.10, 3.11, or 3.12
-
Confirm the device is performing SSL inspectionCheck the SSLV configuration for active SSL forward proxy or SSL inspection policies. Look for enabled inspection rules or configured SSL decryption profiles in the admin interface or via 'show ssl-inspection' CLI commandAffected if SSL inspection or forward proxy functionality is enabled and processing SSL traffic
-
Verify RSA key exchange cipher suites are enabledCheck the SSL cipher configuration on the appliance. In the admin UI, navigate to SSL Settings or Cipher Configuration. From CLI, use 'show ssl ciphers' or similar command to list enabled cipher suitesAffected if RSA key exchange ciphers (such as RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA, TLS_RSA_* variants) are listed as enabled cipher options
You are affected if you are running Broadcom SSL Visibility Appliance firmware 3.8.4fc, 3.10, 3.11, or 3.12 with SSL inspection enabled and RSA key exchange cipher suites available for use.
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 SSLV to version 3.10.4.1 or 3.12.2.1 or later. Alternatively, if patching is not immediately feasible, consider disabling RSA key exchange cipher suites and using only (EC)DHE key exchanges.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $3,808.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-15533 — 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-2017-15533 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