CVE-2017-1694
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 Integration Bus 9.0 and 10.0 transmits user credentials in plain in clear text which can be read by an attacker using man in the middle techniques. IBM X-Force ID: 134165.
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 confidenceIBM Integration Bus versions 9.0 and 10.0 transmit user credentials in clear text without encryption, allowing an attacker positioned on the network path between client and server to intercept credentials via man-in-the-middle techniques.
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= 9.0.0.0= 9.0.0.1= 9.0.0.2= 9.0.0.3= 9.0.0.4= 9.0.0.5= 9.0.0.6= 9.0.0.7= 9.0.0.8= 9.0.0.9= 10.0.0.0= 10.0.0.1CVSS 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
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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 IBM Integration Bus versionRun 'mqsireportversion' or check the product installation directory for the version file. On Windows, check Add/Remove Programs for IBM Integration Bus version. On Linux/UNIX, check the installation path typically under /opt/ibm/IIB or /opt/ibm/mqsi.Affected if The installed version matches 9.0.0.0 through 9.0.0.9, or 10.0.0.0 or 10.0.0.1.
-
Verify TLS/SSL configuration for integration nodeRun 'mqsireportbroker <broker_name>' and look for SSL or TLS configuration settings. Check the broker's security configuration using 'mqsireportbroker' to see if Secure Sockets Layer is enabled.Affected if TLS/SSL is not enabled or not configured for the integration node communications.
-
Check listener port configurationsExamine the integration node's listener configurations. Use 'mqsilist' to show all nodes and their ports. Inspect configuration files in the working directory for the broker that define HTTP versus HTTPS listeners.Affected if Listeners are configured for plain HTTP (non-secure) ports without SSL/TLS encryption.
-
Review client connection security settingsCheck the deployment configuration orbarterconfig files for client-to-server connections. Look for connection type settings in the integration node configuration that specify 'HTTP' rather than 'HTTPS' or lack SSL/TLS parameters.Affected if Client applications connect using non-encrypted HTTP rather than HTTPS or secure SOAP/HTTP with TLS.
You are affected if IBM Integration Bus version 9.0.0.0-9.0.0.9 or 10.0.0.0-10.0.0.1 is installed AND TLS/SSL encryption is not enabled for the integration node and its communication channels.
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 dataEnable TLS/SSL encryption for all IBM Integration Bus communications to ensure credentials are transmitted securely. Review and enforce secure communication configurations across all integration nodes and applications.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-1694 — 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-2017-1694 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