CVE-2017-15566
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 · uneditedInsecure SPANK environment variable handling exists in SchedMD Slurm before 16.05.11, 17.x before 17.02.9, and 17.11.x before 17.11.0rc2, allowing privilege escalation to root during Prolog or Epilog execution.
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 confidenceSchedMD Slurm contains an insecure SPANK (Slurm PLUGIN Allocator) environment variable handling vulnerability that allows local users to escalate privileges to root. The flaw exists in how SPANK plugins process environment variables during Prolog or Epilog script execution, enabling manipulation of the execution context to gain root privileges.
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< 16.05.11>= 17.02.0, < 17.2.09= 17.11.0CVSS 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
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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.
-
Determine installed Slurm versionRun `scontrol --version` or `slurmctld --version` to get the exact version number, or query the package manager (e.g., `rpm -q slurm` or `dpkg -l slurm`)Affected if The version falls within < 16.05.11, >= 17.02.0 and < 17.02.09, or equals 17.11.0
-
Verify SPANK plugin support is enabledCheck the Slurm configuration file (typically /etc/slurm/slurm.conf) for any SPANK plugin definitions, or look for files matching /etc/slurm/spank* or in the plugin directoryAffected if SPANK plugins are defined or the spank.conf file exists, indicating SPANK support is active
-
Check for Prolog or Epilog script configurationInspect slurm.conf for PrologProgram or EpilogProgram directives, which specify scripts that run before or after job executionAffected if PrologProgram or EpilogProgram is configured and points to an executable script
-
Verify SPANK environment variable handling in Prolog/Epilog contextReview the configured Prolog/Epilog scripts and any custom SPANK plugins to confirm they process environment variables without sanitizationAffected if SPANK plugins process user-controlled environment variables during Prolog or Epilog execution without proper filtering
You are affected only if you have a vulnerable Slurm version AND SPANK plugins are enabled AND Prolog or Epilog scripts are configured to use them.
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 data16.05.1117.2.09
Upgrade Slurm to version 16.05.11, 17.02.9, 17.11.0rc2 or later. If immediate patching is not feasible, restrict access to the Prolog/Epilog execution environment and review SPANK plugin configurations for suspicious environment variable manipulation.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 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 $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-15566 — 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-2017-15566 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