Application Policy Infrastructure ControllerApplication · Cisco
CVE-2017-6767
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 vulnerability in Cisco Application Policy Infrastructure Controller (APIC) could allow an authenticated, remote attacker to gain higher privileges than the account is assigned. The attacker will be granted the privileges of the last user to log in, regardless of whether those privileges are higher or lower than what should have been granted. The attacker cannot gain root-level privileges. The vulnerability is due to a limitation with how Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) grants privileges to remotely authenticated users when login occurs via SSH directly to the local management interface of the APIC. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by authenticating to the targeted device. The attacker's privilege level will be modified to match that of the last user to log in via SSH. An exploit could allow the attacker to gain elevated privileges and perform CLI commands that should be restricted by the attacker's configured role. Cisco Bug IDs: CSCvc34335. Known Affected Releases: 1.0(1e), 1.0(1h), 1.0(1k), 1.0(1n), 1.0(2j), 1.0(2m), 1.0(3f), 1.0(3i), 1.0(3k), 1.0(3n), 1.0(4h), 1.0(4o); 1.1(0.920a), 1.1(1j), 1.1(3f); 1.2 Base, 1.2(2), 1.2(3), 1.2.2; 1.3(1), 1.3(2), 1.3(2f); 2.0 Base, 2.0(1).
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 confidenceA vulnerability in Cisco APIC's RBAC implementation allows an authenticated remote attacker to gain elevated privileges by exploiting how the system handles session state during SSH login to the local management interface. When an attacker logs in via SSH, their privilege level is incorrectly set to match the last user who authenticated, potentially granting them higher privileges than their assigned role. This occurs specifically with remotely authenticated users logging in via SSH to the local management interface.
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
Application Policy Infrastructure ControllerApplication
= 1.0\(1e\)= 1.0\(1h\)= 1.0\(1k\)= 1.0\(1n\)= 1.0\(2j\)= 1.0\(2m\)= 1.0\(3f\)= 1.0\(3i\)= 1.0\(3k\)= 1.0\(3n\)= 1.0\(4h\)= 1.0\(4o\)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
- Low
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/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 Cisco APIC versionRun 'show version' or access the APIC controller via CLI or GUI to determine the installed software versionAffected if The installed version matches one of: 1.0(1e), 1.0(1h), 1.0(1k), 1.0(1n), 1.0(2j), 1.0(2m), 1.0(3f), 1.0(3i), 1.0(3k), 1.0(3n), 1.0(4h), 1.0(4o)
-
Verify SSH access to local management interfaceCheck APIC configuration for enabled management services - look for 'management' > 'ssh' settings in the GUI or run 'show management services' in the CLIAffected if SSH service is enabled on the local management interface (typically mgmt0 or out-of-band management)
-
Confirm remote authentication is configuredReview authentication settings under 'System' > 'Management Access' > 'Authentication' in the APIC GUI, or run 'show aaa authentication' in the CLI to see if remote AAA servers (RADIUS/TACACS) are configuredAffected if Remote AAA authentication (RADIUS, TACACS, or LDAP) is enabled for APIC access
-
Check for recent SSH sessions with privilege anomaliesReview APIC audit logs or system logs for SSH login events - look for 'login' and 'ssh' keywords and examine the assigned privilege level for each sessionAffected if Audit logs show SSH sessions where the user's privilege level does not match their assigned role, or privilege levels inconsistent with the user's account
-
Identify user privilege role assignmentsQuery the APIC RBAC configuration under 'System' > 'System Management' > 'Users and Roles' to see which users are assigned to which roles, then correlate with actual session privileges observed in logsAffected if Users with lower-privileged roles are observed operating with higher privilege levels than their assigned role permits during SSH sessions
Your environment is affected if you run a Cisco APIC version matching one of the listed vulnerable versions AND have SSH access enabled for remotely authenticated users on the local management interface.
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 relevant Cisco patch or upgrade to a fixed release. As a defensive measure, avoid using SSH to the local management interface when possible and use API or GUI access instead, or implement network segmentation to limit who can reach the management interface.
Fix this in Application Policy Infrastructure Controller
Scoped from the published advisory
- 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-2017-6767 — 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-2017-6767 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