CVE-2017-2297
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 · uneditedPuppet Enterprise versions prior to 2016.4.5 and 2017.2.1 did not correctly authenticate users before returning labeled RBAC access tokens. This issue has been fixed in Puppet Enterprise 2016.4.5 and 2017.2.1. This only affects users with labeled tokens, which is not the default for tokens.
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 confidencePuppet Enterprise versions prior to 2016.4.5 and 2017.2.1 had an authentication bypass flaw where users were not properly validated before receiving labeled RBAC (Role-Based Access Control) tokens, potentially allowing unauthorized access to resources.
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< 2016.4.5= 2016.5.1= 2016.5.2= 2017.1.0= 2017.1.1CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify Puppet Enterprise versionRun 'puppet --version' or check the Puppet Enterprise console for the version information, or inspect the /opt/puppetlabs/puppet/VERSION file if presentAffected if The version is less than 2016.4.5, or equals 2016.5.1, 2016.5.2, 2017.1.0, or 2017.1.1
-
Confirm labeled RBAC tokens are in useCheck the RBAC configuration in the Puppet Enterprise console or examine the /etc/puppetlabs/puppetdb/conf.d/rbac.json configuration file for token labeling settingsAffected if Labeled RBAC tokens are enabled or configured in the environment
-
Verify RBAC token validation settingsInspect the RBAC token endpoint configuration or review the authentication.conf file for how labeled tokens are processedAffected if The token validation does not properly verify user identity before issuing labeled tokens
A user is affected if they run a vulnerable Puppet Enterprise version (as listed above) AND have labeled RBAC tokens enabled or configured in their environment.
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 data2016.4.5
Upgrade Puppet Enterprise to version 2016.4.5 or 2017.2.1 or later to remediate this vulnerability. Organizations using labeled tokens should verify token integrity after upgrading.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-2297 — 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-2017-2297 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