CVE-2017-7936
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 · uneditedA stack-based buffer overflow issue was discovered in NXP i.MX 50, i.MX 53, i.MX 6ULL, i.MX 6UltraLite, i.MX 6SoloLite, i.MX 6Solo, i.MX 6DualLite, i.MX 6SoloX, i.MX 6Dual, i.MX 6Quad, i.MX 6DualPlus, i.MX 6QuadPlus, Vybrid VF3xx, Vybrid VF5xx, and Vybrid VF6xx. When the device is configured in security enabled configuration, SDP could be used to download a small section of code to an unprotected region of memory.
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 confidenceA stack-based buffer overflow in NXP i.MX and Vybrid processors allows the Serial Download Protocol (SDP) to download code to unprotected memory regions when the device is in security-enabled configuration, potentially enabling code execution.
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 dataall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsCVSS 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
- Physical
- Complexity
- High
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:P/AC:H/PR:L/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.
-
Identify Vybrid processor modelRead the processor marking on the device or query the processor identifier via boot ROM or firmware. Common identifiers include MVF30, MVF50, MVF51 or look for the full part numbers: mvf30nn151cku26, mvf30ns151cku26, mvf50nn151cmk40, mvf50nn151cmk50, mvf50ns151cmk40, mvf50ns151cmk50, mvf51nn151cmk50, mvf51ns151cmk50Affected if The processor matches any of the listed Vybrid model numbers (MVF30, MVF50, MVF51 series)
-
Check firmware versionQuery the firmware version through the device boot ROM, serial console, or firmware management interface. For Vybrid devices, this is often accessible via the boot configuration mode or debug interfaceAffected if The firmware is any version (the advisory states all versions are affected)
-
Verify SDP is enabledCheck the device configuration or boot settings to determine if Serial Download Protocol (SDP) is active. On Vybrid processors, this is typically controlled by boot mode pins or fuses and can be checked via the HAB (High Assurance Boot) configuration or ROM boot log outputAffected if SDP is currently enabled and accessible on the device
-
Confirm security-enabled configurationExamine the security configuration of the device. On Vybrid processors, check whether the device is in a security-enabled state by inspecting HAB (High Assurance Boot) status, secure boot fuses, or security-related configuration registers. This can be done via the debug interface or by reviewing the boot configurationAffected if The device is in a security-enabled configuration (the vulnerability specifically affects security-enabled configurations)
-
Check memory protection settingsReview memory region configuration to determine if certain memory regions are unprotected. On Vybrid devices, examine the memory map and flash configuration to see if any memory regions are configured as executable without proper access controls in the security-enabled stateAffected if There exist unprotected memory regions that SDP could be used to write to in the current security configuration
The device is affected if it is any Vybrid processor model from the MVF30/MVF50/MVF51 series with SDP enabled and operating in a security-enabled configuration with unprotected memory regions accessible to the Serial Download Protocol.
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 dataApply NXP firmware updates for affected processors and disable SDP in security-enabled configurations or implement proper bounds checking in the SDP handler.
- Consultation10.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing10.0 h
- Review / QA6.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $10,784.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-7936 — 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-2017-7936 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