CVE-2017-5796
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 Remote Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in HPE 2620 Series Network Switches version RA.15.05.0006 was found.
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 confidenceA Remote Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the web-based management interface of HPE 2620 Series Network Switches (version RA.15.05.0006) allows remote attackers to induce authenticated administrators to perform unintended administrative actions by tricking them into visiting malicious URLs or web pages.
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< ra.15.15.0014< ra.15.15.0014< ra.15.15.0014< ra.15.15.0014< ra.15.15.0014CVSS 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 the switch modelLog into the switch CLI and run 'show system-information' or check the physical device label to confirm the model number is one of: J9627a, J9626a, J9625a, J9624a, or J9623aAffected if The model is any of the five affected models listed above
-
Check the firmware versionRun 'show version' or 'show flash' in the switch CLI to display the current firmware versionAffected if The firmware version is earlier than ra.15.15.0014 (for example, ra.15.05.0006 as mentioned in the CVE description)
-
Verify if web management is enabledRun 'show http' or 'show web-management' in the CLI to check whether the web-based management interface is currently enabledAffected if The web management interface is enabled and the model/firmware conditions are met - this is required for the CSRF vulnerability to be exploitable
The environment is affected if the switch is an HPE 2620 Series model (J9623a-J9627a) running firmware version earlier than ra.15.15.0014 AND the web-based management interface is enabled.
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 the vendor-supplied firmware patch for HPE 2620 Series switches. If no patch is available, disable the web management interface and use CLI-based management via SSH, or implement strict network access controls to limit exposure of the management interface.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-5796 — 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-2017-5796 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