CVE-2017-16065
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 · uneditedopenssl.js was a malicious module published with the intent to hijack environment variables. It has been unpublished by npm.
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 confidenceopenssl.js was a malicious typosquatting npm package that impersonated a legitimate OpenSSL wrapper. The package was designed to exfiltrate environment variables from the host system, potentially exposing API keys, credentials, tokens, and other sensitive configuration data.
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 dataall versionsCVSS 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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Check for openssl.js in package dependenciesRun 'npm list openssl.js' or 'yarn list openssl.js' in your project directory to see if the package is installed as a dependencyAffected if The package appears in the dependency tree
-
Inspect package.json for openssl.jsSearch your package.json file (and any lock files) for 'openssl.js' in the dependencies, devDependencies, or resolutions sectionsAffected if openssl.js is listed as a dependency
-
Search node_modules for openssl.js directoryRun 'ls node_modules | grep -i openssl' or check if the directory node_modules/openssl.js existsAffected if The openssl.js directory exists in node_modules
-
Examine the package contents for exfiltration codeIf found, inspect the main entry file in openssl.js (typically index.js) for code that sends data to external URLs or references process.envAffected if The code contains network requests sending environment variables or sensitive data
You are affected if the openssl.js package is present in your project's dependency tree, as this malicious package was designed to capture and exfiltrate any environment variables accessible to the Node.js process.
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 dataImmediately audit all projects for presence of the openssl.js package and remove it. Review and rotate any credentials, API keys, tokens, or secrets that may have been present in environment variables during the time the malicious package was installed.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-16065 — 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-2017-16065 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