CVE-2017-8213
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 · uneditedHuawei SMC2.0 with software of V100R003C10, V100R005C00SPC100, V100R005C00SPC101B001T, V100R005C00SPC102, V100R005C00SPC103, V100R005C00SPC200, V100R005C00SPC201T, V500R002C00, V600R006C00 has an input validation vulnerability when handle TLS and DTLS handshake with certificate. Due to the insufficient validation of received PKI certificates, remote attackers could exploit this vulnerability to crash the TLS module.
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 confidenceHuawei SMC2.0 contains an input validation flaw in its TLS/DTLS handshake certificate processing. The software fails to properly validate received PKI certificates, allowing remote attackers to send specially crafted certificates that crash the TLS module, causing denial of service.
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= v100r003c10= v100r005c00spc100= v100r005c00spc101b001t= v100r005c00spc102= v100r005c00spc103= v100r005c00spc200= v100r005c00spc201t= v500r002c00= v600r006c00CVSS 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
- None
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
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 the SMC2.0 firmware versionAccess the SMC2.0 management console or check the system information page to view the installed firmware version. This is typically found under 'System' > 'About' or via CLI command 'display version'.Affected if The installed version matches any of: v100r003c10, v100r005c00spc100, v100r005c00spc101b001t, v100r005c00spc102, v100r005c00spc103, v100r005c00spc200, v100r005c00spc201t, v500r002c00, or v600r006c00
-
Verify TLS/DTLS service is enabledCheck the SMC2.0 configuration for TLS or DTLS protocol settings. Look under 'Security' > 'Certificate Management' or 'Network' > 'TLS Settings' in the management interface. Alternatively, check configuration files for tls-enabled or dtls-enabled parameters.Affected if TLS or DTLS services are enabled and configured for use
-
Confirm network exposure to TLS/DTLS trafficReview firewall rules and network access controls to determine if the SMC2.0 TLS/DTLS ports (typically port 443 or custom DTLS ports) are exposed to untrusted networks or the internet. Check inbound access control lists.Affected if The TLS/DTLS interfaces are reachable from untrusted networks or the internet
You are affected if your SMC2.0 firmware version exactly matches one of the nine listed versions AND TLS/DTLS services are enabled and exposed to network traffic.
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 the vendor-provided patches for the affected SMC2.0 versions (V100R003C10 through V600R006C00). If patches are unavailable, consider network-level filtering of untrusted TLS connections or disabling TLS/DTLS services if not operationally critical.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $2,464.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-8213 — 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-2017-8213 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