CVE-2017-7945
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 · uneditedThe GlobalProtect external interface in Palo Alto Networks PAN-OS before 6.1.17, 7.x before 7.0.15, 7.1.x before 7.1.9, and 8.x before 8.0.2 provides different error messages for failed login attempts depending on whether the username exists, which allows remote attackers to enumerate account names and conduct brute-force attacks via a series of requests, aka PAN-SA-2017-0014 and PAN-72769.
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 confidenceThe GlobalProtect external interface in PAN-OS before versions 6.1.17, 7.0.15, 7.1.9, and 8.0.2 returns distinct error messages for authentication failures depending on whether the submitted username exists in the system. This username enumeration flaw enables remote attackers to identify valid accounts and subsequently conduct brute-force password attacks against the VPN gateway.
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<= 6.1.15= 7.0.0= 7.0.1= 7.0.2= 7.0.3= 7.0.4= 7.0.5= 7.0.6= 7.0.7= 7.0.8= 7.0.9= 7.0.10CVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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.
-
Check PAN-OS versionLog into the Palo Alto Networks device or check the device info through the management interface. Run 'show system info' or navigate to Dashboard > General Information to view the PAN-OS version.Affected if The installed version is PAN-OS 6.1.15 or lower, or any version 7.0.0 through 7.0.10.
-
Confirm GlobalProtect is enabledNavigate to Network > GlobalProtect > Portals or Gateways in the PAN-OS web interface. Verify if any GlobalProtect portals or gateways are configured and enabled.Affected if GlobalProtect is active and accessible from external networks.
-
Test for username enumerationFrom an external network, attempt to authenticate to the GlobalProtect interface with two different usernames: one known to be valid (or a guess) and one known to be invalid. Compare the error messages returned for each attempt.Affected if The error message for a valid username differs from the error message for an invalid username (for example, one says 'Invalid credentials' while the other says 'User not found' or similar distinct messages).
A system is affected if it runs PAN-OS 6.1.15 or earlier, or any PAN-OS 7.0.x version up to 7.0.10, and has an externally accessible GlobalProtect interface that returns different error messages for valid versus invalid usernames.
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.
dbcve · scopedUpgrade to PAN-OS 6.1.17, 7.0.15, 7.1.9, 8.0.2 or later. As a compensating control, implement aggressive rate limiting and account lockout policies on the GlobalProtect interface to hinder enumeration and brute-force attempts.
PAN-OS 6.1.17+ (6.1.x branch), 7.0.15+ (7.0.x branch), 7.1.9+ (7.1.x branch), or 8.0.2+ (8.0.x branch)
- 1. Identify the current PAN-OS version by navigating to Device > Support or using 'show system info' in the CLI
- 2. Based on current version, determine the minimum fixed release: if on 6.1.x upgrade to 6.1.17+, if on 7.0.x upgrade to 7.0.15+, if on 7.1.x upgrade to 7.1.9+, if on 8.0.x upgrade to 8.0.2+
- 3. Review Palo Alto Networks Upgrade Guide for pre-upgrade requirements
- 4. Backup the PAN-OS configuration using Device > Setup > Operations > Save config to file
- 5. Download the appropriate PAN-OS update from Palo Alto Networks Support Portal
- 6. Upload and install the update via Device > Software > Upload, then Install
- 7. After reboot, verify the fix by testing GlobalProtect login attempts - both valid and invalid usernames should now return consistent error messages
- 8. Confirm the version is now running a fixed release
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,728.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-7945 — 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-2017-7945 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