dbcve.org
Big Ip Policy Enforcement ManagerApplication · F5

CVE-2017-6144

HIGH · 7.4 CVSS v3.0 Published 2017-10-20
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
83/100
Remediation priority · High
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
In F5 BIG-IP PEM 12.1.0 through 12.1.2 when downloading the Type Allocation Code (TAC) database file via HTTPS, the server's certificate is not verified. Attackers in a privileged network position may be able to launch a man-in-the-middle attack against these connections. TAC databases are used in BIG-IP PEM for Device Type and OS (DTOS) and Tethering detection. Customers not using BIG-IP PEM, not configuring downloads of TAC database files, or not using HTTP for that download are not affected.

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 confidence

In F5 BIG-IP PEM versions 12.1.0-12.1.2, the TAC (Type Allocation Code) database download feature uses HTTPS but fails to verify the server's SSL certificate, allowing man-in-the-middle attackers to intercept or modify the downloaded data.

MitigationDisable TAC database downloads in PEM configuration, or upgrade to a patched version. Using HTTP instead of HTTPS is not recommended as it provides no encryption.

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
Big Ip Policy Enforcement ManagerApplication
Affected:= 12.1.0= 12.1.1= 12.1.2

CVSS 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
High
Privileges
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
None

CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify the installed PEM version
    Use the F5 BIG-IP command line or management interface to retrieve the Policy Enforcement Manager (PEM) version. Common methods include checking via tmsh (tmsh show / pem version) or through the web management console under System > Software Management.
    Affected if The version is exactly 12.1.0, 12.1.1, or 12.1.2
  2. Verify TAC database download feature is configured
    Examine the PEM configuration for TAC (Type Allocation Code) database download settings. This is typically found in the PEM configuration menus related to database updates or subscriber management. Check if TAC download is enabled or scheduled.
    Affected if TAC database download feature is enabled or configured in the PEM environment
  3. Confirm HTTPS is used for TAC downloads
    Inspect the TAC database download configuration to determine if the connection uses HTTPS transport. The vulnerability specifically affects HTTPS connections that fail to perform SSL certificate verification.
    Affected if HTTPS is selected as the transport protocol for TAC database downloads
  4. Check SSL certificate verification setting
    Review the SSL/TLS settings for the TAC database download feature. Look for any configuration option controlling certificate validation or verification. The flaw exists because the code fails to verify the server certificate even when HTTPS is used.
    Affected if SSL certificate verification is either disabled, not implemented, or set to a weak configuration for the TAC download connection

A user is affected if they are running PEM versions 12.1.0, 12.1.1, or 12.1.2 AND have the TAC database download feature enabled with HTTPS transport, regardless of the certificate verification setting because the verification fails in the vulnerable code.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Disable TAC database downloads in PEM configuration, or upgrade to a patched version. Using HTTP instead of HTTPS is not recommended as it provides no encryption.

Fix this in Big Ip Policy Enforcement Manager Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation3.0 h
  • Implementation6.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
14.0 hours of engineering $2,490
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,984.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-6144 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2017-6144 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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