CVE-2017-7435
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 · uneditedIn libzypp before 20170803 it was possible to add unsigned YUM repositories without warning to the user that could lead to man in the middle or malicious servers to inject malicious RPM packages into a users system.
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 confidencelibzypp before version 20170803 failed to warn users when adding unsigned YUM repositories, bypassing critical security validation. This allowed potential man-in-the-middle attackers or malicious repository operators to inject arbitrary RPM packages into systems without detection, as the package manager would install packages without verifying cryptographic signatures.
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<= 16.15.2CVSS 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
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/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.
-
Determine whether libzypp is installed and retrieve its versionRun `rpm -q libzypp` or `zypper info libzypp` to obtain the installed version string.Affected if If the package is not present, you are not affected. If present, continue to version comparison.
-
Compare the installed version to the vulnerable thresholdParse the version number (e.g., 16.15.2) and compare it to 16.15.2 (or to the date‑based version 20170803).Affected if If the version is <= 16.15.2 (or lower than 20170803), the library is vulnerable.
-
Locate the YUM repository configuration files used by libzyppFind the repository definition files that libzypp uses for YUM repositories (typically named *.repo).Affected if If any such repository files exist, the flaw could apply when an unsigned repository is added.
-
Check for unsigned repositoriesOpen each repository file and look for settings that disable signature verification, such as `gpgcheck=0` or the absence of a `gpgkey` line.Affected if If an unsigned repository (gpgcheck=0 or no gpgkey) is present, you are directly affected by the vulnerability.
You are affected if the installed libzypp version is <= 16.15.2 and you have configured or plan to use unsigned YUM repositories.
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 dataUpdate libzypp to version 20170803 or later which implements proper warning/rejection mechanisms for unsigned repositories, and audit all configured YUM repositories for signature status.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,808.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-7435 — 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-2017-7435 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