CVE-2017-3771
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 · uneditedSystem boot process is not adequately secured In Lenovo E95 and ThinkCentre M710s/M710t because systems were shipped from factory without completing BIOS/UEFI initialization process.
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 confidenceLenovo E95, ThinkCentre M710s, and M710t systems were shipped from the factory with incomplete BIOS/UEFI initialization, leaving the boot process inadequately secured. This could allow an attacker with physical access to modify boot settings, disable Secure Boot, or persist malicious bootloaders.
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< m16kt40a< m16kt40a< m16kt40aCVSS 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
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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 exact Lenovo modelCheck the system model using 'dmidecode -s system-product-name' or look at the physical system labelAffected if Model is not one of: ThinkCentre M710s, ThinkCentre M710t, or Lenovo Aio E95 (not affected)
-
Check the BIOS/UEFI firmware versionEnter BIOS/UEFI setup (press F1 during boot) and navigate to the 'Version' or 'BIOS Version' information screen, or use 'dmidecode -s bios-version'Affected if Firmware version is less than m16kt40a on ThinkCentre M710s, M710t, or Aio E95 models (vulnerable)
-
Verify if Secure Boot is enabledEnter BIOS/UEFI setup and navigate to the 'Secure Boot' or 'Boot' security settings. Check if Secure Boot is set to 'Enabled'Affected if Secure Boot is disabled or not listed (vulnerable to bootkit installation)
-
Check if boot order is lockedEnter BIOS/UEFI setup and navigate to 'Boot' settings. Verify that boot order cannot be changed without an admin password, or that only authorized devices are listedAffected if Boot order can be freely modified or shows unauthorized devices (vulnerable to boot order manipulation)
-
Confirm admin/boot passwords are setEnter BIOS/UEFI setup and check 'Security' or 'Password' settings. Verify that an admin password and/or boot password is configuredAffected if No admin password or boot password is set (vulnerable to unauthorized BIOS configuration changes)
A system is affected if it is a ThinkCentre M710s, M710t, or Aio E95 with firmware version below m16kt40a AND has Secure Boot disabled, unlocked boot order, or missing BIOS passwords.
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 dataInitialize and configure BIOS/UEFI settings on affected systems, ensuring Secure Boot is enabled, boot order is locked, and admin/boot passwords are set.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,880.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-3771 — 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-2017-3771 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