CVE-2017-7667
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 · uneditedApache NiFi before 0.7.4 and 1.x before 1.3.0 need to establish the response header telling browsers to only allow framing with the same origin.
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 confidenceApache NiFi versions before 0.7.4 and 1.x before 1.3.0 are missing the X-Frame-Options HTTP response header, which instructs browsers to restrict the page from being framed by sites from different origins. This allows clickjacking attacks where an attacker embeds the NiFi UI in an invisible iframe to trick users into performing unintended actions.
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<= 0.7.3= 1.0.0= 1.0.1= 1.1.0= 1.1.1= 1.1.2= 1.2.0CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/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 NiFi versionAccess the NiFi UI and navigate to the 'About' page (usually at /nifi/ or check the footer), or inspect the nifi-version file in the NiFi installation directory, or check the startup logs for the version numberAffected if The version is 0.7.3 or earlier, or exactly 1.0.0, 1.0.1, 1.1.0, 1.1.1, 1.1.2, or 1.2.0
-
Test for X-Frame-Options header on UI responsesUse a browser developer tool or curl command to request any NiFi UI page (e.g., curl -I https://your-nifi-host/nifi/), then inspect the HTTP response headers for the presence of X-Frame-OptionsAffected if The X-Frame-Options header is missing from the HTTP response headers, meaning the page can be framed by external sites
You are affected if your NiFi version falls within the listed vulnerable versions AND the X-Frame-Options header is absent from NiFi HTTP responses, leaving the UI vulnerable to clickjacking via iframe embedding.
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 dataAdd the X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN header (or Content-Security-Policy: frame-ancestors as a modern alternative) to all HTTP responses in the affected NiFi versions.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing1.0 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 $1,744.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-7667 — 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-2017-7667 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