CVE-2017-16632
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 · uneditedIn SapphireIMS 4097_1, the password in the database is stored in Base64 format.
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 confidenceSapphireIMS 4097_1 stores user passwords in the database using Base64 encoding rather than proper cryptographic hashing. Base64 is a reversible encoding scheme that provides no security protection—anyone with database access can trivially decode all stored passwords. This exposes credentials to immediate compromise if the database is breached.
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= 4097_1CVSS 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:3.1/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 SapphireIMS versionLocate the installed SapphireIMS version by inspecting the application metadata, about page, or version file typically found in the web application root directory. Look for a version identifier file or check the application banner.Affected if The installed version is exactly 4097_1
-
Access the user credentials databaseConnect to the SapphireIMS database using the credentials configured in the application's database connection settings (typically found in a configuration file). Navigate to the user or administrator table that stores authentication credentials.Affected if Database access is available and contains a user table with password fields
-
Inspect stored password formatExamine the password field contents for a sample user account. Base64 encoded passwords will appear as alphanumeric strings that decode to readable text using standard Base64 decoding tools. Look for patterns like 'c2Fwc2Fw' decoding to 'sapsap'.Affected if Stored password values decode to plain text using Base64 decoding, indicating reversible encoding rather than a cryptographic hash
-
Verify hash non-reversibilityAttempt to verify that stored passwords are not properly hashed by checking if they match known plaintext after Base64 decoding. If multiple passwords decode successfully and resemble plaintext credentials, the system uses insecure storage.Affected if Passwords are recoverable in plaintext form through Base64 decoding, confirming they are not cryptographically hashed
A user is affected if they run SapphireIMS version 4097_1 and the database contains password fields that decode from Base64 to plain text rather than being stored as irreversible salted hashes.
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 dataMigrate to proper password hashing algorithms (e.g., bcrypt, scrypt, or Argon2) with unique per-user salts. Existing Base64-encoded passwords must be hashed upon next user login or through a forced password reset campaign.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $8,960.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-16632 — 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-2017-16632 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