CVE-2017-8228
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 · uneditedAmcrest IPM-721S V2.420.AC00.16.R.20160909 devices mishandle reboots within the past two hours. Amcrest cloud services does not perform a thorough verification when allowing the user to add a new camera to the user's account to ensure that the user actually owns the camera other than knowing the serial number of the camera. This can allow an attacker who knows the serial number to easily add another user's camera to an attacker's cloud account and control it completely. This is possible in case of any camera that is currently not a part of an Amcrest cloud account or has been removed from the user's cloud account. Also, another requirement for a successful attack is that the user should have rebooted the camera in the last two hours. However, both of these conditions are very likely for new cameras that are sold over the Internet at many ecommerce websites or vendors that sell the Amcrest products. The successful attack results in an attacker being able to completely control the camera which includes being able to view and listen on what the camera can see, being able to change the motion detection settings and also be able to turn the camera off without the user being aware of it. Note: The same attack can be executed using the Amcrest Cloud mobile application.
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 analysisA legacy NVD category covering weaknesses where permissions or privileges are assigned, checked, or dropped incorrectly, so an action ends up running with more access than it should. It is an umbrella label from older records, not a single flaw. The remedy depends on the specific case, but the throughline is least privilege with explicit, checked transitions wherever privilege changes.
General guidance for the permissions, privileges & access controls class — the official description and references above are authoritative for this specific CVE. Want a bespoke review and a reviewed fix? Ask our team →
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<= 2.420.ac00.16.r.20160909CVSS 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
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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 dataScan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-8228 — 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-2017-8228 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