CVE-2017-16074
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 · uneditedcrossenv 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 It has been unpublished by npm.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 confidencecrossenv was a malicious npm module published to the npm registry with the explicit intent to hijack environment variables. The package attempted to exfiltrate sensitive environment variable data (often containing API keys, tokens, and credentials) from projects that installed it, exploiting the trust developers place in the npm ecosystem.
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 package.json for crossenv dependencyInspect the dependencies, devDependencies, and optionalDependencies sections in your project's package.json file for any entry named 'crossenv'Affected if crossenv appears in any dependencies section of package.json
-
Check package-lock.json for crossenvSearch the package-lock.json file for any occurrences of the string 'crossenv' - this shows if the package was ever installed as a transitive dependencyAffected if crossenv appears in package-lock.json
-
Check node_modules directory for crossenvLook for a crossenv folder within node_modules, or run 'ls node_modules | grep crossenv' to list it if presentAffected if a crossenv directory exists in node_modules
-
Query installed packages via npm or yarnRun 'npm list crossenv' or 'yarn list --pattern crossenv' to query the dependency tree for this packageAffected if npm or yarn reports crossenv as installed
If crossenv is found in any of these locations (package.json, package-lock.json, node_modules, or npm/yarn list output), the environment is affected because the malicious package had access to process.env variables.
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 dataVerify that crossenv is not present in any project dependency trees, audit logs for any potential exposure of sensitive environment variables, and rotate any credentials that may have been present in the affected environment variables. Implement dependency scanning and lockfile verification to prevent similar supply chain attacks.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $3,488.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-16074 — 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-2017-16074 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