X PackApplication · Elastic
CVE-2017-8449
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 · uneditedX-Pack Security 5.2.x would allow access to more fields than the user should have seen if the field level security rules used a mix of grant and exclude rules when merging multiple rules with field level security rules for the same 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 · moderate confidenceX-Pack Security 5.2.x has a field-level security (FLS) bypass vulnerability where users could see more fields than intended. The flaw occurs when FLS rules use a mix of grant and exclude rules that get merged for the same index, causing the exclusion logic to be improperly applied and exposing restricted fields to unauthorized users.
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
>= 5.2.0, <= 5.2.2CVSS 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
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/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.
-
Identify X-Pack Security versionRun bin/plugin list or query GET /_xpack to retrieve the installed X-Pack versionAffected if Version is between 5.2.0 and 5.2.2 inclusive
-
Confirm Field-Level Security is enabledQuery GET /_xpack/security/role/_all or inspect role YAML configuration files in the Elasticsearch configuration directory, looking for field_security sections with grant or exclude clausesAffected if Any role contains field_security configuration settings
-
Identify mixed grant/exclude FLS rulesFor each role with FLS, examine whether the same index pattern has both grant (*) fields and exclude field patterns defined, or whether multiple roles with conflicting FLS rules apply to the same indexAffected if Any index has FLS configurations that combine both grant and exclude field patterns, or overlapping FLS policies exist for the same index
Environment is affected if X-Pack Security version is 5.2.0-5.2.2 AND Field-Level Security is enabled with any grant/exclude rule combinations applied to 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 X-Pack Security to a version beyond 5.2.x that contains the fix. If immediate upgrade is not feasible, audit all FLS configurations to identify and refactor any mixed grant/exclude rule sets for affected indices, and review access logs for signs of unauthorized field exposure.
Fix this in X Pack
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-8449 — 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-2017-8449 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