X PackApplication · Elastic
CVE-2017-8445
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 · uneditedAn error was found in the X-Pack Security TLS trust manager for versions 5.0.0 to 5.5.1. If reloading the trust material fails the trust manager will be replaced with an instance that trusts all certificates. This could allow any node using any certificate to join a cluster. The proper behavior in this instance is for the TLS trust manager to deny all certificates.
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 confidenceIn X-Pack Security versions 5.0.0 to 5.5.1, a flawed error handler in the TLS trust manager replaces the trust material with a permissive trust-all manager when reloading trust material fails. This causes the trust manager to accept any certificate, allowing unauthorized nodes to join the cluster.
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
X PackApplication
>= 5.0.0, <= 5.5.1CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
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.
-
Verify X-Pack Security is installedRun `bin/elasticsearch-plugin list -s` or check the plugins directory for the security pluginAffected if X-Pack Security is not present in the plugin list
-
Determine installed X-Pack Security versionRun `bin/elasticsearch-plugin version` for the security plugin, or check the version in the ES_HOME/plugins/x-pack directoryAffected if Version is 5.0.0 through 5.5.1 inclusive
-
Confirm TLS is enabled for node-to-node or HTTP transportCheck elasticsearch.yml for `xpack.ssl.` configuration settings such as `xpack.ssl.key`, `xpack.ssl.certificate`, or `xpack.security.transport.ssl.enabled: true`Affected if TLS/SSL is configured in X-Pack Security settings
-
Verify trust material reload configuration existsCheck elasticsearch.yml for `xpack.ssl.truststore.path` or `xpack.ssl.certificate_authorities` settings that would be reloadedAffected if Custom trust material is configured that could trigger a reload failure
The environment is affected if X-Pack Security is installed with TLS enabled, the X-Pack version falls between 5.0.0 and 5.5.1, and custom trust material is configured that could fail to reload.
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 dataUpgrade X-Pack Security to version 5.5.2 or later where the trust manager properly denies all certificates on reload failure instead of trusting all certificates.
Fix this in X Pack
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 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 $2,272.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-8445 — 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-2017-8445 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