dbcve.org
Big Ip LtmApplication · F5

CVE-2017-6168

HIGH · 7.4 CVSS v3.0 Published 2017-11-17
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to after 12.1.2 or later.
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
On BIG-IP versions 11.6.0-11.6.2 (fixed in 11.6.2 HF1), 12.0.0-12.1.2 HF1 (fixed in 12.1.2 HF2), or 13.0.0-13.0.0 HF2 (fixed in 13.0.0 HF3) a virtual server configured with a Client SSL profile may be vulnerable to an Adaptive Chosen Ciphertext attack (AKA Bleichenbacher attack) against RSA, which when exploited, may result in plaintext recovery of encrypted messages and/or a Man-in-the-middle (MiTM) attack, despite the attacker not having gained access to the server's private key itself, aka a ROBOT attack.

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

F5 BIG-IP virtual servers with Client SSL profiles using RSA key exchange are vulnerable to a ROBOT (Return of Bleichenbacher's Oracle Threat) attack - an adaptive chosen ciphertext attack that allows plaintext recovery or MiTM attacks without requiring the server's private key.

MitigationApply the appropriate hotfix (11.6.2 HF1, 12.1.2 HF2, or 13.0.0 HF3) to affected versions, or alternatively disable RSA key exchange in Client SSL profiles and use forward-secret ciphers like ECDHE.

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 LtmApplication
Affected:>= 11.6.0, <= 11.6.2>= 12.0.0, <= 12.1.2= 13.0.0
Big Ip Application Acceleration ManagerApplication
Affected:>= 11.6.0, <= 11.6.2>= 12.0.0, <= 12.1.2= 13.0.0
Big Ip AfmApplication
Affected:>= 11.6.0, <= 11.6.2>= 12.0.0, <= 12.1.2= 13.0.0
Big Ip AnalyticsApplication
Affected:>= 11.6.0, <= 11.6.2>= 12.0.0, <= 12.1.2= 13.0.0
Big Ip ApmApplication
Affected:>= 11.6.0, <= 11.6.2>= 12.0.0, <= 12.1.2= 13.0.0
Big Ip AsmApplication
Affected:>= 11.6.0, <= 11.6.2>= 12.0.0, <= 12.1.2= 13.0.0
Big Ip Link ControllerApplication
Affected:>= 11.6.0, <= 11.6.2>= 12.0.0, <= 12.1.2= 13.0.0
Big Ip PemApplication
Affected:>= 11.6.0, <= 11.6.2>= 12.0.0, <= 12.1.2= 13.0.0

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. Check the F5 BIG-IP version
    Run 'tmsh show sys version' or access the BIG-IP web UI under System > Software Management > Images to see the installed version
    Affected if Version is 11.6.0 through 11.6.2, 12.0.0 through 12.1.2, or exactly 13.0.0
  2. Identify Client SSL profiles in use
    Run 'tmsh list ltm profile client-ssl all' to list all Client SSL profiles configured on the BIG-IP device
    Affected if Any Client SSL profiles are configured on virtual servers
  3. Verify RSA key exchange is enabled
    For each Client SSL profile, run 'tmsh list ltm profile client-ssl <profile_name>' and examine the 'ciphers' and 'options' settings. Look for RSA-based cipher suites or options like 'no-tls-reuse' that may affect RSA key exchange behavior
    Affected if The profile includes RSA cipher suites or allows RSA key exchange (the default configuration enables RSA key exchange)

The environment is affected if the BIG-IP version falls within the vulnerable ranges AND virtual servers are using Client SSL profiles that support RSA key exchange, which is the default setting.

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
Upgrade available Upgrade to a release after 12.1.2
Interim mitigation

Apply the appropriate hotfix (11.6.2 HF1, 12.1.2 HF2, or 13.0.0 HF3) to affected versions, or alternatively disable RSA key exchange in Client SSL profiles and use forward-secret ciphers like ECDHE.

Fix this in Big Ip Ltm Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation4.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA1.0 h
10.0 hours of engineering $1,750
Get the upgrade done

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 locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-6168 — 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-2017-6168 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