CVE-2017-9022
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 gmp plugin in strongSwan before 5.5.3 does not properly validate RSA public keys before calling mpz_powm_sec, which allows remote peers to cause a denial of service (floating point exception and process crash) via a crafted certificate.
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 gmp plugin in strongSwan before 5.5.3 fails to validate RSA public keys before passing them to the mpz_powm_sec function, allowing remote attackers to send crafted certificates that trigger a floating point exception and crash the VPN process.
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= 8.0= 9.0= 14.04= 16.04= 16.10= 17.04<= 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
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/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.
-
Check installed strongSwan versionRun `strongswan version` or `ipsec version`, or on Debian/Ubuntu run `dpkg -l | grep strongswan`Affected if Version is 5.5.2 or earlier (versions 5.5.3 and later are fixed)
-
Verify gmp plugin is loadedCheck ipsec.conf for `load_modular = yes` and `plugins { ... }` section, or run `ipsec status` to see loaded plugins, or list files in `/usr/lib/ipsec/plugins/` or `/usr/lib/strongswan/plugins/`Affected if The gmp plugin appears in the loaded plugins list or is enabled in configuration
-
Confirm RSA-based authentication is configuredInspect `/etc/ipsec.conf` and files in `/etc/ipsec.d/` (especially `ipsec.secrets`, certificates in `certs/`, and private keys in `private/`). Look for `authby=rsa`, `authby=rsasig`, or RSA certificate/key files.Affected if RSA authentication (authby=rsa or rsasig) is configured or RSA certificates/keys are present in ipsec.d/ directories
Environment is affected if strongSwan version is 5.5.2 or earlier, the gmp plugin is enabled/loaded, and RSA-based authentication is in use, allowing a remote attacker to send crafted certificates that crash the VPN daemon.
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 strongSwan to version 5.5.3 or later, which includes proper RSA public key validation in the gmp plugin.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $2,480.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-9022 — 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-2017-9022 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