SatelliteApplication · Redhat
CVE-2017-7513
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 · uneditedIt was found that Satellite 5 configured with SSL/TLS for the PostgreSQL backend failed to correctly validate X.509 server certificate host name fields. A man-in-the-middle attacker could use this flaw to spoof a PostgreSQL server using a specially crafted X.509 certificate.
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 confidenceRed Hat Satellite 5 configured with SSL/TLS for its PostgreSQL backend does not properly validate X.509 server certificate hostname fields, allowing a man-in-the-middle attacker to spoof the PostgreSQL server with a specially crafted certificate.
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
SatelliteApplication
= 5.0= 5.1.1= 5.2= 5.3= 5.4= 5.4.1= 5.5= 5.6= 5.7= 5.8CVSS 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
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/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.
-
Identify Red Hat Satellite versionRun 'rpm -q rhn-satellite' or check /etc/redhat-release for the satellite version stringAffected if The installed version matches 5.0, 5.1.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.4.1, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, or 5.8
-
Verify PostgreSQL SSL/TLS is enabledCheck the Satellite configuration files (typically in /etc/rhn or /var/opt/satellite) for PostgreSQL connection settings containing 'sslmode', 'sslcert', or 'sslkey' parameters, or inspect the database configuration via Satellite UI under 'Database' settingsAffected if SSL/TLS is configured for the PostgreSQL backend connection (sslmode is not disabled)
-
Inspect PostgreSQL SSL certificate validation settingsExamine the PostgreSQL connection configuration used by Satellite - look for 'sslmode' parameter value in the database connection string or config file; if using libpq, verify whether hostname verification is enforced (sslmode should be 'verify-full' for proper validation)Affected if sslmode is set to 'require', 'prefer', or is missing/empty, allowing connections without full hostname verification against the certificate CN or subjectAltName
A user is affected if they run any of the listed Satellite 5 versions with PostgreSQL SSL/TLS enabled and the SSL configuration lacks proper certificate hostname validation (sslmode is not set to 'verify-full').
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 dataConfigure PostgreSQL SSL/TLS to properly validate certificate hostname (subjectAltName or CN) against the expected server hostname, or ensure only trusted certificates from valid CAs are used in the Satellite environment.
Fix this in Satellite
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-7513 — 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-2017-7513 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