CVE-2017-3980
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 · uneditedA directory traversal vulnerability in the ePO Extension in McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator (ePO) 5.9.0, 5.3.2, and 5.1.3 and earlier allows remote authenticated users to execute a command of their choice via an authenticated ePO session.
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 confidenceA directory traversal vulnerability in the ePO Extension of McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator allows remote authenticated users to manipulate file paths using '..' sequences to escape intended directories and execute arbitrary commands on the server via an authenticated ePO session.
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<= 5.1.3>= 5.3.0, <= 5.3.3>= 5.9.0, <= 5.9.1CVSS 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
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/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 ePO installation and versionLocate the ePolicy Orchestrator installation and determine its version number through the ePO console, registry, or version fileAffected if The installed version falls within <= 5.1.3; >= 5.3.0 through <= 5.3.3; or >= 5.9.0 through <= 5.9.1
-
Verify ePO web console is accessibleConfirm the ePO web interface is reachable and operational on the serverAffected if The ePO web console is exposed and available to network users
-
Confirm ePO Extension is enabledCheck that the ePO Extension component is installed and active within the ePO consoleAffected if The ePO Extension is enabled and accessible to authenticated users
-
Audit ePO user authentication configurationReview ePO authentication settings to determine which users have administrative or privileged access to the extensionAffected if Any authenticated user with access to the ePO Extension can trigger the traversal vulnerability
A user is affected if their ePO installation version is within the ranges <= 5.1.3, 5.3.0-5.3.3, or 5.9.0-5.9.1 AND the ePO Extension is accessible to authenticated users.
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 dataApply vendor-supplied patches for ePO versions 5.9.0, 5.3.2, and 5.1.3 and earlier. As a compensating control, restrict ePO administrative access to only trusted personnel and monitor for unusual file access patterns.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing10.0 h
- Review / QA6.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $9,504.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-3980 — 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-2017-3980 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