CVE-2017-7930
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 Improper Authentication issue was discovered in OSIsoft PI Server 2017 PI Data Archive versions prior to 2017. PI Data Archive has protocol flaws with the potential to expose change records in the clear and allow a malicious party to spoof a server within a collective.
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 confidenceOSIsoft PI Data Archive versions prior to 2017 contain protocol flaws that transmit change records in plaintext (unencrypted), allowing network observers to intercept sensitive operational data. Additionally, the authentication mechanism for PI Collectives is insufficient, enabling a malicious actor to spoof a server member within the collective and potentially inject or modify data.
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<= 3.4.410.1256CVSS 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
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/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 if OSIsoft PI Data Archive is installedLocate PI Data Archive installation directories or check installed programs on the systemAffected if PI Data Archive software is found on the system
-
Determine the installed PI Data Archive versionUse the PI product version checking mechanism (such as PI SMT, program properties, or version information files) to obtain the exact version numberAffected if The version number cannot be determined or is lower than expected release standards
-
Compare installed version against affected rangeCompare the discovered version number to the affected range: versions <= 3.4.410.1256 are vulnerableAffected if The installed version is 3.4.410.1256 or earlier
-
Determine if PI Collectives are configuredCheck PI Collective configuration settings or documentation to see if PI Collectives are in useAffected if PI Collectives are configured and the PI Data Archive version is in the affected range
-
Assess network communication encryption statusReview network configuration and protocol settings for PI Data Archive communications to determine if encryption is enabledAffected if Network communications are unencrypted and the PI Data Archive version is in the affected range
The environment is affected if OSIsoft PI Data Archive version 3.4.410.1256 or earlier is installed, particularly if PI Collectives are configured or network communications are unencrypted.
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 dataUpgrade PI Data Archive to version 2017 or later, which contains corrected protocols. If immediate upgrade is not feasible, implement network segmentation and monitoring to detect server spoofing attempts, and restrict physical/logical access to the collective communication channels.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing8.0 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 $10,240.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-7930 — 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-2017-7930 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