CVE-2017-5619
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 · uneditedAn issue was discovered in Zammad before 1.0.4, 1.1.x before 1.1.3, and 1.2.x before 1.2.1. Attackers can login with the hashed password itself (e.g., from the DB) instead of the valid password string.
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 confidenceZammad before versions 1.0.4, 1.1.3, and 1.2.1 contains an authentication bypass where the application accepts the password hash directly as a valid credential. An attacker who obtains the hashed password from the database can use it to authenticate without cracking the hash.
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<= 1.0.3= 1.1.0= 1.1.1= 1.1.2= 1.2.0CVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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 installed Zammad versionAccess the Zammad admin interface, navigate to the About or Settings page, or run 'zammad --version' from the command line if available. Check package management tools (dpkg, rpm) or the Gemfile.lock for the installed version.Affected if The installed version is 1.0.3 or earlier, 1.1.0 through 1.1.2, or exactly 1.2.0.
-
Verify password hash authentication behaviorAttempt to log in using a known password hash from the database as the password field value instead of the plaintext password. Observe whether the authentication succeeds.Affected if Authentication succeeds when the password hash from the database is used directly as the credential.
-
Review authentication logs for hash reuseExamine Zammad application and web server logs for login attempts where the credential matches a hash pattern (alphanumeric strings of consistent length, typically 60+ characters for bcrypt).Affected if Logs show successful logins using long alphanumeric strings as passwords rather than normal user passwords.
-
Check for database compromise indicatorsReview database access logs or audit trails for unauthorized SELECT queries on the users table, particularly columns containing password_hash or password.Affected if The password hash has been extracted from the database, indicating potential exploitation of this vulnerability.
You are affected if your Zammad version is 1.0.3 or earlier, 1.1.0-1.1.2, or 1.2.0, and either the application accepts password hashes as valid credentials or evidence exists of unauthorized access using extracted password hashes.
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.
dbcve · scopedUpgrade Zammad to version 1.0.4, 1.1.3, 1.2.1 or later. If immediate patching is not possible, consider implementing additional access controls on the database and enabling two-factor authentication.
Upgrade to Zammad 1.0.4+, 1.1.3+, or 1.2.1+ (preferably the latest stable release)
- Backup your Zammad database and application data before proceeding with the upgrade
- Identify your current Zammad version using the admin interface or command line
- If running Zammad <= 1.0.3, upgrade to version 1.0.4 or later
- If running Zammad 1.1.0, 1.1.1, or 1.1.2, upgrade to version 1.1.3 or later
- If running Zammad 1.2.x before 1.2.1, upgrade to version 1.2.1 or later
- After upgrade, verify that password hashing now properly validates plaintext passwords rather than accepting password hashes directly
- Test user authentication with valid plaintext passwords to confirm the fix is working
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 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 $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-5619 — 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-2017-5619 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