CVE-2017-2111
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 · uneditedHTTP header injection vulnerability in TS-WPTCAM firmware version 1.18 and earlier, TS-WPTCAM2 firmware version 1.00, TS-WLCE firmware version 1.18 and earlier, TS-WLC2 firmware version 1.18 and earlier, TS-WRLC firmware version 1.17 and earlier, TS-PTCAM firmware version 1.18 and earlier, TS-PTCAM/POE firmware version 1.18 and earlier may allow a remote attackers to display false information.
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 confidenceThis is an HTTP header injection (CRLF injection) vulnerability in Buffalo/Toscoma network camera firmware. Attackers can inject newline characters into HTTP responses to manipulate headers or display arbitrary content to users, enabling phishing or information distortion attacks.
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<= 1.18<= 1.18<= 1.17<= 1.18<= 1.18= 1.00<= 1.18CVSS 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
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/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 camera modelAccess the device web interface or check the physical device label to confirm the exact model (e.g., Ts Ptcam, Ts Wrlc, Ts Wlc2, Ts Wlce, Ts Wptcam, Ts Wptcam2, or Ts Ptcam/poe)Affected if The model is any of the Iodata Ts series cameras listed in the affected products
-
Locate firmware version informationLog into the camera web interface and navigate to System Settings, Status, or Device Information page to find the firmware version numberAffected if The displayed firmware version matches or is below the affected version ranges (1.18 or lower for most models, 1.17 for Ts Wrlc, exactly 1.00 for Ts Wptcam2)
-
Compare version against affected rangesRecord the firmware version and compare it to: Ts Ptcam/poe <= 1.18, Ts Ptcam <= 1.18, Ts Wrlc <= 1.17, Ts Wlc2 <= 1.18, Ts Wlce <= 1.18, Ts Wptcam2 = 1.00, Ts Wptcam <= 1.18Affected if The installed version falls within or below these version thresholds
-
Verify web interface is accessibleConfirm the camera HTTP web interface is enabled and reachable on the network (the vulnerability exists in the HTTP response header handling)Affected if The web interface is active and accepts HTTP requests
You are affected if you are running any of the Iodata Ts series network cameras (Ptcam, Ptcam/poe, Wrlc, Wlc2, Wlce, Wptcam, Wptcam2) with firmware versions at or below the affected thresholds and the web interface is accessible.
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 dataUpgrade firmware to patched versions. If unavailable, implement input validation to strip CRLF characters from all user-supplied data before insertion into HTTP headers, and deploy WAF rules to detect and block header injection attempts.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-2111 — 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-2017-2111 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