CloudformsApplication · Redhat
CVE-2017-2664
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 · uneditedCloudForms Management Engine (cfme) before 5.7.3 and 5.8.x before 5.8.1 lacks RBAC controls on certain methods in the rails application portion of CloudForms. An attacker with access could use a variety of methods within the rails application portion of CloudForms to escalate privileges.
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 confidenceCloudForms Management Engine before versions 5.7.3 and 5.8.1 lacks Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) enforcement on certain Rails application methods. An authenticated attacker with baseline access can invoke these unprotected methods to elevate their privileges within the application.
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
CloudformsApplication
= 4.2= 4.6
Cloudforms Management EngineApplication
< 5.7.3>= 5.8, < 5.8.1CVSS 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
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/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 CloudForms Management Engine versionLog into the CloudForms appliance via SSH and run: `cat /var/www/miq/vmdb/VERSION` or check the about page in the web UI under the help menuAffected if The version displayed is 4.2, 4.6, or is earlier than 5.7.3, or is 5.8.0 (any version before 5.7.3 or 5.8.1 within the 5.8.x line)
-
Confirm the Red Hat CloudForms product versionCheck the appliance product version with: `cat /etc/redhat-release` or look at the product name displayed at loginAffected if The product reports as CloudForms 4.2 or 4.6 specifically
-
Verify the Rails application is accessibleConfirm the CloudForms web UI is reachable at the appliance hostname or IP address on ports 443 or 80Affected if The web interface is exposed and accepts authentication requests
-
Determine if baseline user authentication is enabledCheck if local or external authentication is configured in CloudForms under Configuration > AuthenticationAffected if Authentication is enabled allowing users to log in with baseline (non-admin) privileges
A user is affected if the installed CloudForms version matches 4.2, 4.6, or any version before 5.7.3, or is version 5.8.0, and the web interface with user authentication 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 data5.7.35.8.1
Upgrade CloudForms Management Engine to version 5.7.3 or later, or 5.8.1 or later, to apply the RBAC controls.
Fix this in Cloudforms
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $3,328.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-2664 — 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-2017-2664 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