X PackApplication · Elasticsearch
CVE-2017-8446
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 Reporting feature in X-Pack in versions prior to 5.5.2 and standalone Reporting plugin versions versions prior to 2.4.6 had an impersonation vulnerability. A user with the reporting_user role could execute a report with the permissions of another reporting user, possibly gaining access to sensitive data.
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 X-Pack Reporting feature in Elastic Stack versions prior to 5.5.2 (and standalone Reporting plugin prior to 2.4.6) contained an authorization flaw where a user assigned the reporting_user role could execute reports with the permissions of other reporting users, enabling unauthorized access to sensitive data through impersonation.
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
<= 5.5.1
X Pack ReportingApplication
<= 2.4.5CVSS 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
- Low
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/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.
-
Confirm X-Pack Reporting is in useCheck if the reporting feature is enabled by reviewing the Elasticsearch configuration files (elasticsearch.yml) for xpack.reporting.enabled settings, or query the _nodes API for reporting module: GET /_nodes?filter_path=nodes.*.modules.nameAffected if X-Pack Reporting is enabled and the reporting_user role is defined or assigned to any user
-
Identify the X-Pack versionQuery the cluster info: GET /_xpack or check the Elasticsearch version directly via: GET /Affected if The reported version is 5.5.1 or earlier (for X-Pack installations)
-
Identify the standalone Reporting plugin versionList installed plugins: GET /_cat/plugins?v or check the plugins directory on each node for the reporting plugin versionAffected if The standalone Reporting plugin version is 2.4.5 or earlier
-
Check for reporting_user role usageQuery the native realm or LDAP/AD integration for users with the reporting_user role: GET /_xpack/security/role/reporting_user (if X-Pack Security is enabled), or review role mapping configuration filesAffected if The reporting_user role exists and is assigned to one or more users in the environment
A user is affected if they are running Elasticsearch with X-Pack Reporting (or standalone Reporting plugin) at version 5.5.1 or earlier (X-Pack) or 2.4.5 or earlier (standalone), and the reporting_user role is actively defined or assigned in the system.
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 to version 5.5.2 or later, or upgrade the standalone Reporting plugin to version 2.4.6 or later, to resolve the authorization bypass in the reporting module.
Fix this in X Pack
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $3,328.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-8446 — 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-2017-8446 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