Debian LinuxOperating system · Debian
CVE-2017-1665
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 · uneditedIBM Tivoli Key Lifecycle Manager 2.5, 2.6, and 2.7 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 133559.
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 · moderate confidenceIBM Tivoli Key Lifecycle Manager versions 2.5, 2.6, and 2.7 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms (such as outdated hash functions or weak cipher suites) that could allow a remote attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information that was protected using these weak algorithms.
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
Debian LinuxOperating system
= 9.0= 2.5.0= 2.5.0.0= 2.5.0.1= 2.5.0.2= 2.5.0.3= 2.5.0.4= 2.5.0.5= 2.5.0.6= 2.5.0.7= 2.5.0.8= 2.6.0= 2.6.0.1CVSS 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
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/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.
-
Identify IBM Security Key Lifecycle Manager installationSearch the system for IBM Security Key Lifecycle Manager or Tivoli Key Lifecycle Manager software installations. Look for product directories, services, or installed packages related to TKLM or ISKLM.Affected if The software is present on the system and matches the affected product name.
-
Determine installed versionLocate and inspect the version information for the installed IBM Security Key Lifecycle Manager. Common methods include checking product-specific files, running version commands, or examining installed package metadata.Affected if The installed version is 2.5.0, 2.5.0.0 through 2.5.0.8, 2.6.0, or 2.6.0.1.
-
Check cryptographic configuration for weak algorithmsExamine the cryptographic configuration files, cipher suite settings, or hash function configurations used by the product. Look for configurations specifying algorithm selection, TLS/SSL settings, or encryption policy files.Affected if Weak or outdated cryptographic algorithms (such as weak hash functions or weak cipher suites) are enabled or configured as the primary cryptographic method.
-
Verify Debian version if applicableIf the product is running on Debian Linux, check the Debian version using 'cat /etc/debian_version' or similar commands.Affected if The Debian Linux version is exactly 9.0.
A user is affected if IBM Security Key Lifecycle Manager version 2.5.0 through 2.6.0.1 is installed and weak cryptographic algorithms are configured as the active cryptographic method.
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 dataUpgrade to IBM Tivoli Key Lifecycle Manager version 2.7.1 or later which contains stronger cryptographic implementations, or configure the product to use stronger cryptographic algorithms and cipher suites where supported.
Fix this in Debian Linux
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-1665 — 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-2017-1665 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