CVE-2017-20040
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 · uneditedA vulnerability was found in SICUNET Access Controller 0.32-05z. It has been declared as problematic. This vulnerability affects unknown code of the component Password Storage. The manipulation leads to weak encryption. Attacking locally is a requirement.
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 confidenceSICUNET Access Controller 0.32-05z stores user passwords using weak encryption in the Password Storage component. A local attacker with access to the system could potentially recover or decrypt stored credentials due to inadequate cryptographic protection.
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= 0.32-05zCVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/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 SICUNET Access Controller installationCheck system for presence of Sicunet Access Control software. Look for the application or service named 'Sicunet' or 'Access Controller' in installed programs, services, or running processes.Affected if SICUNET Access Controller is installed on the system
-
Determine installed versionUse system inventory tools, check program files, or run version detection commands for Sicunet Access Control. Common methods: check installed packages, review software registry entries, or query the application with version flags if available.Affected if The installed version is exactly 0.32-05z (no other versions are listed as affected)
-
Locate password storage componentIdentify and examine the Password Storage component or module within the SICUNET Access Controller installation. Look for configuration files, databases, or storage files related to user credential management.Affected if The Password Storage component exists and is in use on the system
-
Inspect credential storage mechanismExamine how passwords are stored: check if they appear as encrypted strings, hashed values, or plaintext in password storage files or databases. Compare the storage format against modern secure hashing standards.Affected if Passwords are stored using weak encryption rather than secure password hashing (e.g., simple encryption, reversible encoding, or unsalted hashes)
You are affected if SICUNET Access Controller version 0.32-05z is installed and its Password Storage component uses weak encryption for credentials.
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 dataReplace weak password storage with industry-standard password hashing (e.g., bcrypt, scrypt, or Argon2) and migrate existing passwords using secure key derivation. Ensure proper salt handling and increase work factors for authentication.
- 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-2017-20040 — 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-2017-20040 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