CVE-2017-16892
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 Bftpd before 4.7, there is a memory leak in the file rename function.
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 confidenceA memory leak exists in the file rename function of Bftpd FTP server versions prior to 4.7. The leak occurs during rename operations and could allow an authenticated attacker to exhaust server memory over time through repeated rename requests, potentially causing denial of service.
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< 4.7.0CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
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 Bftpd versionRun 'bftpd --version' or 'bftpd -v' to display the installed Bftpd version. Check your package manager if installed via package (dpkg -l bftpd, rpm -qi bftpd)Affected if Version is less than 4.7.0 (e.g., 4.6, 4.5, etc.)
-
Verify Bftpd service is runningCheck if the Bftpd daemon is active and listening (ps aux | grep bftpd, netstat -tlnp | grep 21, or systemctl status bftpd)Affected if Bftpd is running and accessible to authenticated users
-
Confirm user authentication is enabledReview Bftpd configuration file (typically /etc/bftpd.conf or /etc/bftpd/bftpd.conf) to verify that user authentication is not disabled (look for AUTH=0 or anonymous-only settings)Affected if Authenticated users can log in to the FTP server (either local users or defined FTP users)
-
Check for rename command accessibilityLog in to the FTP server with a valid account and attempt a rename operation (RNFR/RNTO commands) to confirm the rename functionality is availableAffected if Rename operations can be performed by authenticated users
The environment is affected if Bftpd version is below 4.7.0, the service is running and accessible, and authenticated users can perform rename operations, as the memory leak is triggered during rename requests from authenticated attackers.
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 data4.7.0
Upgrade to Bftpd version 4.7 or later to obtain the patch that fixes the memory leak in the rename function.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-16892 — 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-2017-16892 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