CVE-2017-2173
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 · uneditedCross-site scripting vulnerability in Empirical Project Monitor - eXtended all versions allows remote authenticated attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via unspecified vectors.
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 confidenceCross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in Empirical Project Monitor - eXtended allows authenticated remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML through unspecified vectors, likely via user input fields that are not properly sanitized before display.
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 dataall versionsCVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/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.
-
Confirm Ipa Empirical Project Monitor Extended is installedLocate the application by checking for processes or services named 'Empirical Project Monitor', 'ProjectMonitor', or related executables/web applications in your environment. Check installed programs list or running services.Affected if The product Ipa Empirical Project Monitor Extended is present on the system
-
Verify user authentication is enabledCheck the application configuration for user login/enrollment functionality. Look for authentication settings, user database, or login-related configuration files in the application directory.Affected if User authentication is enabled, as exploitation requires an authenticated attacker
-
Identify user input fields in the applicationExamine the web interface or application forms where users can submit data, such as project names, descriptions, comments, or other user-supplied fields. These are the likely injection points.Affected if The application contains user input fields that accept and display user-supplied data without visible sanitization indicators
-
Test for reflected input in application responsesSubmit a benign test string with special characters (e.g., <script>alert(1)</script>) in any user input field and verify whether the application reflects this string unmodified in its response or page output.Affected if User input is reflected back in responses without encoding or sanitization, indicating potential XSS vulnerability
A user is affected if Ipa Empirical Project Monitor Extended is installed with user authentication enabled and contains input fields that reflect unsanitized user data in responses.
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 dataImplement robust input validation and output encoding/sanitization for all user-supplied data, focusing on identifying and fixing the injection points in the application.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-2173 — 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-2017-2173 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