Empirical Project Monitor ExtendedApplication · Ipa

CVE-2017-2175

HIGH · 7.8 CVSS v3.0 Published 2017-05-22
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
81/100
Remediation priority · High
No privileges

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 · unedited
Untrusted search path vulnerability in Empirical Project Monitor - eXtended all versions allows remote attackers to gain privileges via a Trojan horse DLL in an unspecified directory.

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 confidence

This is a DLL hijacking vulnerability (untrusted search path) in Empirical Project Monitor - eXtended. The application uses an insecure search path to locate DLL files, allowing attackers to place a malicious Trojan horse DLL in a directory that the application searches. When the application runs, it loads the attacker's DLL instead of the legitimate one, executing arbitrary code with the application's privileges.

MitigationRemove or secure any writable directories in the application's DLL search path, implement secure DLL loading using absolute paths or explicit paths, and verify that the application only loads DLLs from trusted locations.

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
Empirical Project Monitor ExtendedApplication
Affected:all versions

CVSS 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
None
User interaction
Required
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Verify Ipa Empirical Project Monitor Extended is installed
    Check for the application in standard installation directories (typically C:\Program Files\ or C:\Program Files (x86)\) or search for files named 'Empirical Project Monitor' or 'EPM' on the system
    Affected if The application is present on the system
  2. Identify the application's DLL search path
    Use a process monitor tool or examine the application's configuration files and startup behavior to determine which directories it searches when loading DLLs
    Affected if The application searches multiple directories for DLLs without using absolute paths
  3. Check for writable directories in the DLL search path
    Review each directory in the application's DLL search path and verify write permissions for standard users or low-privileged accounts
    Affected if Any directory in the search path is writable by an untrusted user
  4. Inspect search path directories for suspicious DLLs
    List all DLL files in directories within the application's search path and compare against known legitimate DLLs expected by the application
    Affected if Unexpected or unknown DLL files exist in directories the application searches for DLL loading

If Ipa Empirical Project Monitor Extended is installed and any directory in its DLL search path is writable by an untrusted user, the environment is vulnerable to CVE-2017-2175.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Remove or secure any writable directories in the application's DLL search path, implement secure DLL loading using absolute paths or explicit paths, and verify that the application only loads DLLs from trusted locations.

Fix this in Empirical Project Monitor Extended Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation3.0 h
  • Implementation12.0 h
  • Testing6.0 h
  • Review / QA3.0 h
24.0 hours of engineering $4,200
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,720.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-2175 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2017-2175 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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