Certificate SystemApplication · Redhat
CVE-2017-7509
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 · uneditedAn input validation error was found in Red Hat Certificate System's handling of client provided certificates before 8.1.20-1. If the certreq field is not present in a certificate an assertion error is triggered causing a denial of service.
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 confidenceRed Hat Certificate System before 8.1.20-1 lacks proper input validation when processing client-provided certificates. When a certificate lacks the certreq field, the system triggers an assertion error rather than gracefully handling the missing field, causing a denial of service condition.
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
Certificate SystemApplication
< 8.1.20-1CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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.
-
Confirm Red Hat Certificate System is installedCheck for the presence of Red Hat Certificate System components on the host using system package managers or installed product listingsAffected if The product is present on the system
-
Identify the installed version of Red Hat Certificate SystemUse system commands or configuration tools to retrieve the current version number of the Red Hat Certificate System installationAffected if The version number returned is less than 8.1.20-1
-
Verify the system accepts client-provided certificatesCheck whether the Certificate System is configured to accept and process client-submitted certificates, typically through its CA or RA service configurationAffected if The system accepts certificates from clients without additional validation layers
A system is affected if it runs Red Hat Certificate System version earlier than 8.1.20-1 and is configured to accept client-provided certificates, as the missing certreq field will trigger an assertion error causing denial of service.
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 data8.1.20-1
Upgrade to Red Hat Certificate System 8.1.20-1 or later which includes proper validation for the certreq field. Alternatively, implement input validation to check for certreq field presence before processing certificates.
Fix this in Certificate System
Scoped from the published advisory
- 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-2017-7509 — 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-2017-7509 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