CVE-2017-2110
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 · uneditedThe Access CX App for Android prior to 2.0.0.1 and for iOS prior to 2.0.2 does not verify X.509 certificates from SSL servers, which allows man-in-the-middle attackers to spoof servers and obtain sensitive information via a crafted certificate.
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 Access CX mobile application for Android and iOS fails to validate X.509 certificates when establishing SSL/TLS connections, allowing attackers on the same network to intercept communications through a man-in-the-middle attack by presenting a fraudulent certificate.
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<= 2.0.0.0<= 2.0.1CVSS 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 the installed Access CX app version on AndroidOpen Settings > Apps > Access CX (or Nissan Securities Access CX), then view the Version information. Alternatively, run `adb shell dumpsys package com.nissan.access` (replace with actual package name if different) and look for versionName or versionCode.Affected if The displayed version is 2.0.0.0 or lower (Android)
-
Identify the installed Access CX app version on iOSGo to Settings > General > iPhone Storage (or iPad Storage), find Access CX in the app list, and view the version number displayed under the app name.Affected if The displayed version is 2.0.1 or lower (iOS)
-
Confirm the app is the Nissan Securities Access CX variantVerify the app name matches 'Nissan Securities Access CX' or 'Access CX' from Nissan Securities. Check the app's package name (Android) or bundle identifier (iOS) if accessible through device management tools.Affected if The app is Nissan Securities Access CX and the version falls within the affected range for the respective platform
A user is affected if they have the Nissan Securities Access CX mobile app installed at version 2.0.0.0 or lower on Android, or version 2.0.1 or lower on iOS.
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 dataUpdate the Access CX app to version 2.0.0.1 or later for Android and version 2.0.2 or later for iOS, which implement proper SSL certificate validation.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $3,664.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-2110 — 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-2017-2110 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