CVE-2017-8059
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 · uneditedAcceptance of invalid/self-signed TLS certificates in "Foxit PDF - PDF reader, editor, form, signature" before 5.4 for iOS allows a man-in-the-middle and/or physically proximate attacker to silently intercept login information (username/password), in addition to the static authentication token if the user is already logged in.
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 Foxit PDF iOS application before version 5.4 improperly accepts invalid or self-signed TLS certificates, failing to properly validate server certificates during SSL/TLS connections. This allows a man-in-the-middle attacker to intercept login credentials (username/password) and any active session tokens by impersonating the server.
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= 5.2.1= 5.3.2CVSS 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
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/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.
-
Identify if Foxit PDF for iOS is installedCheck the iOS device for the Foxit PDF app icon on the home screen, or navigate to Settings > General > iPhone Storage > Foxit Pdf to confirm installationAffected if If the Foxit PDF app is present on the iOS device, proceed to version check
-
Determine the installed Foxit PDF versionOpen the App Store, tap your profile, go to Purchased > Foxit PDF to see the version, or check the app version through iPhone Storage in Settings, or query via MDM if availableAffected if If the version number shown is 5.2.1 or 5.3.2, or any version lower than 5.4, the device is running a vulnerable version
-
Verify the app uses network connectionsThis vulnerability is triggered when the app connects to remote PDF files or servers over HTTPS; check if the app has been used to open PDFs from network locations or cloud storageAffected if If the app has been used to access PDFs over network connections, the certificate validation issue is exploitable in transit
If Foxit PDF for iOS is installed and the version is 5.2.1, 5.3.2, or any version prior to 5.4, the app is vulnerable to MITM attacks due to improper TLS certificate validation.
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 dataUpdate Foxit PDF for iOS to version 5.4 or later, which implements proper TLS certificate validation. For organizations, deploy the update via MDM or ensure users update from the App Store.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-8059 — 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-2017-8059 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