CVE-2017-3965
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 Request Forgery (CSRF) (aka Session Riding) vulnerability in the web interface in McAfee Network Security Management (NSM) before 8.2.7.42.2 allows remote attackers to perform unauthorized tasks such as retrieving internal system information or manipulating the database via specially crafted URLs.
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 confidenceCross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the McAfee Network Security Management web interface allows remote attackers to perform unauthorized actions by tricking authenticated users into clicking specially crafted URLs. The vulnerability enables retrieval of internal system information and database manipulation.
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< 8.2.7.42.2CVSS 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
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify if McAfee Network Security Manager is installedCheck for the NSM web interface by accessing the management console URL (typically https://<server>:8443/ or https://<server>:443/) or look for NSM processes running on the serverAffected if McAfee NSM web interface is accessible and running
-
Determine the installed NSM versionLog into the NSM web interface and navigate to Help > About, or check the version information in the server's installation directory if you have direct accessAffected if The displayed version number is less than 8.2.7.42.2
-
Verify the web interface is exposed to networkConfirm the NSM web service is listening on network interfaces accessible from outside localhost. Check listening ports (typically 443, 8443) using netstat or similar tools on the NSM serverAffected if The web interface accepts connections from untrusted networks or the internet
-
Check for CSRF protection mechanismsInspect HTTP responses from the NSM web interface using browser developer tools or a proxy. Look for anti-CSRF tokens in forms and SameSite or CSRF-related headers in cookie responsesAffected if No anti-CSRF tokens are present in forms and no CSRF-specific protections are found in cookies or headers
You are affected if McAfee Network Security Manager is installed and the version is below 8.2.7.42.2, and the web interface is accessible to users who could be tricked into clicking malicious URLs.
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 data8.2.7.42.2
Update McAfee NSM to version 8.2.7.42.2 or later to obtain the vendor patch. Additionally, implement anti-CSRF tokens and SameSite cookie attributes as defense-in-depth measures.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,656.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-3965 — 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-2017-3965 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