X PackApplication · Elastic
CVE-2017-8447
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 5.3.0 to 5.5.2 privilege enforcement. If a user has either 'delete' or 'index' permissions on an index in a cluster, they may be able to issue both delete and index requests against that index.
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 confidenceX-Pack Security 5.3.0 to 5.5.2 had a privilege enforcement flaw where users granted either 'delete' OR 'index' permission on an index could perform both delete and index operations, enabling unauthorized access beyond their intended privileges.
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
= 5.3.0= 5.3.1= 5.3.2= 5.3.3= 5.4.0= 5.5.0= 5.5.2CVSS 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
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/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.
-
Identify Elasticsearch and X-Pack versionRun 'GET /' on the Elasticsearch cluster to retrieve the version number. X-Pack is bundled with Elasticsearch in versions 5.3.0-5.5.2.Affected if The Elasticsearch version is 5.3.0, 5.3.1, 5.3.2, 5.3.3, 5.4.0, 5.5.0, or 5.5.2.
-
Confirm X-Pack Security is enabledRun 'GET /_xpack/security' to check if security is installed and enabled.Affected if X-Pack Security is active and the version falls within the affected range.
-
Check for users with single-permission delete or index rolesRun 'GET /_xpack/security/role' to list all defined roles. Inspect each role for indices privileges that grant either 'delete' OR 'index' but not both permissions.Affected if Any role has only 'delete' OR only 'index' permission on an index, allowing that user to perform both operations due to the bypass.
-
Audit role-to-user assignmentsRun 'GET /_xpack/security/user' to see which users are assigned the roles identified in step 3.Affected if Users are assigned roles with the vulnerable single-permission configuration on indices they access.
You are affected if X-Pack Security is enabled and the version is 5.3.0-5.5.2, particularly if users have roles granting only delete OR only index permission on indices.
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 Elasticsearch X-Pack Security to version 5.5.3 or later to remediate the privilege bypass.
Fix this in X Pack
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,416.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-8447 — 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-2017-8447 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