CVE-2017-8915
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 · uneditedsinopia, as used in SAP HANA XS 1.00 and 2.00, allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (assertion failure and service crash) by pushing a package with a filename containing a $ (dollar sign) or % (percent) character, aka SAP Security Note 2407694.
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 sinopia private registry component in SAP HANA XS 1.00 and 2.00 fails to properly validate package filenames during push operations. An attacker can cause an assertion failure and service crash by pushing a package with a filename containing $ (dollar sign) or % (percent) characters.
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= 1.00= 2.00CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
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 SAP HANA XS installation and versionCheck for SAP HANA XS components using SAP HANA lifecycle management tools (hdblcm, HANA COCKPIT, or HANA STUDIO) or by querying the HANA system for installed packages. Look for xsengine or xs components in the installed software.Affected if The installed version matches SAP HANA XS 1.00 or 2.00 exactly (note: the affected versions listed are = 1.00 and = 2.00, indicating these specific versions).
-
Determine if sinopia package registry is enabledCheck the SAP HANA XS runtime configuration for the sinopia (xs repo) service. This is typically exposed via the XS Engine or XS Advanced runtime. Verify if the package repository/push functionality is exposed via HTTP/HTTPS endpoints.Affected if The sinopia component is enabled and exposed for package push operations (this is the component where the filename validation flaw exists).
-
Audit package push operationsReview application logs or enable audit logging for package push operations to the XS repository. Check for any packages pushed with filenames containing $ or % characters that may have triggered assertion failures.Affected if Packages with $ or % characters in filenames have been pushed successfully, indicating the validation is not in place (or the crash condition was triggered).
You are affected if SAP HANA XS version 1.00 or 2.00 is installed AND the sinopia package registry component is enabled and accessible for push operations.
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 dataImplement proper input validation to reject package filenames containing $ or % characters, or apply vendor patches from SAP Security Note 2407694 to remediate the vulnerability.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $5,408.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-8915 — 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-2017-8915 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