Terminal Services AgentApplication · Paloaltonetworks
CVE-2017-6356
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 · uneditedPalo Alto Networks Terminal Services (aka TS) Agent 6.0, 7.0, and 8.0 before 8.0.1 uses weak permissions for unspecified resources, which allows attackers to obtain sensitive session information via unknown vectors.
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 confidencePalo Alto Networks Terminal Services Agent versions 6.0, 7.0, and 8.0 before 8.0.1 uses overly permissive file or registry permissions on unspecified resources, allowing local or remote attackers to read sensitive terminal services session information such as session data, credentials, or session state.
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
Terminal Services AgentApplication
= 6.0= 7.0= 8.0CVSS 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
- Low
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Verify if Palo Alto Networks Terminal Services Agent is installedCheck for the presence of the Terminal Services Agent software on the system. On Windows, this can be done via Add/Remove Programs, or by checking for the installation directory (typically under Program Files or Program Files (x86) with 'Palo Alto Networks' or 'Terminal Services Agent' in the path).Affected if The software is not found on the system, the user is not affected by this vulnerability.
-
Determine the installed version of Terminal Services AgentLocate the installed Terminal Services Agent and check its version information. This is typically found in the software's properties (right-click the executable, select Properties, go to Details tab), or via registry keys under HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Uninstall for the installed program.Affected if The installed version is 6.0, 7.0, or 8.0 (before 8.0.1), indicating the system falls within the affected version range.
-
Inspect file permissions on Terminal Services Agent directoriesRight-click the Terminal Services Agent installation folder (commonly in Program Files), select Properties, then go to the Security tab. Examine the permissions granted to users or groups other than Administrators and System. Look for overly permissive access such as 'Everyone', 'Users', or 'Authenticated Users' having Read, Write, or Full Control permissions on sensitive directories containing session data or configuration files.Affected if File permissions grant excessive access to non-privileged users or groups on sensitive session-related files or folders.
-
Inspect registry permissions for Terminal Services Agent keysOpen Registry Editor (regedit), navigate to keys related to Terminal Services Agent (commonly under HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Palo Alto Networks or HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\TSAgent). Right-click the key, select Permissions, and review which users or groups have access. Check for overly permissive entries such as 'Everyone' or 'Users' with Full Control or Write permissions.Affected if Registry permissions grant excessive access to non-privileged users or groups on sensitive registry keys storing session information.
A user is affected if the installed version is 6.0, 7.0, or 8.0 (before 8.0.1) AND overly permissive file or registry permissions exist on Terminal Services Agent resources containing sensitive session data.
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 dataUpgrade Palo Alto Networks Terminal Services Agent to version 8.0.1 or later to obtain the vendor patch that enforces proper permission restrictions on sensitive resources.
Fix this in Terminal Services Agent
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation1.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,696.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-6356 — 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-2017-6356 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