CVE-2017-18589
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 · uneditedAn issue was discovered in the cookie crate before 0.7.6 for Rust. Large integers in the Max-Age of a cookie cause a panic.
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 confidenceThe Rust cookie crate before version 0.7.6 panics when parsing cookies containing large integer values in the Max-Age attribute, causing denial of service due to unchecked integer overflow.
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< 0.7.6CVSS 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.
-
Locate the cookie crate dependencySearch your project's Cargo.toml file for 'cookie' under the [dependencies] section, or search for 'name = "cookie"' in your Cargo.lock fileAffected if The cookie crate is listed as a dependency
-
Identify the installed cookie crate versionCheck the version number specified next to the cookie dependency in Cargo.toml (e.g., cookie = "0.1" or cookie = "0.7.0"), or find the version entry for cookie in Cargo.lockAffected if A version number is explicitly specified for the cookie crate
-
Compare the version to the affected rangeCompare your installed version number to the affected range: versions less than 0.7.6 are vulnerableAffected if The version is less than 0.7.6 (for example, 0.7.5, 0.7.0, 0.6.0, etc.)
-
Check for cookie Max-Age parsingSearch your codebase for code that parses HTTP cookies and accesses the Max-Age attribute (look for .max_age(), .age(), or similar method calls on parsed Cookie objects)Affected if Your application parses cookies and processes the Max-Age attribute
Your environment is affected if the cookie crate version is less than 0.7.6 AND your application parses cookies containing Max-Age attributes with potentially large integer values.
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 data0.7.6
Upgrade the cookie crate to version 0.7.6 or later, and validate any cookie Max-Age values before processing to prevent excessively large integers.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $2,464.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-18589 — 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-2017-18589 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