CVE-2017-16079
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 · uneditedsmb 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 It has been unpublished by npm.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 confidencesmb was a malicious npm module that was published to the npm registry with the explicit purpose of hijacking environment variables. The package was designed to exfiltrate sensitive data such as API keys, credentials, and other secrets stored in process environment variables back to the attacker.
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 dependenciesSearch your project's package.json file for 'smb' in the dependencies, devDependencies, or optionalDependencies fieldsAffected if The string 'smb' appears as a dependency entry
-
Inspect package-lock.jsonSearch your package-lock.json file for any entries referencing 'smb' package nameAffected if An entry for the smb package exists in the lock file
-
List installed npm packagesRun 'npm list smb' or 'npm ls smb' to see if the package is installed in your node_modulesAffected if The smb package appears in the npm list output
-
Check node_modules directlyInspect your node_modules directory for a folder named 'smb'Affected if A folder named 'smb' exists in node_modules
-
Audit npm dependenciesRun 'npm audit' to check for known malicious packages in your dependency treeAffected if npm audit reports smb as a malicious or unwanted package
Your environment is affected if the smb npm package appears anywhere in your project's dependency tree, as all versions of this package were malicious.
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 smb is not present in any project dependencies (including historical versions), audit for similar malicious packages in the dependency tree, and rotate any credentials that may have been exposed in environment variables during the time this package could have been installed.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Testing1.0 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 $1,200.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-16079 — 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-2017-16079 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