CVE-2017-9267
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 · uneditedIn Novell eDirectory before 9.0.3.1 the LDAP interface was not strictly enforcing cipher restrictions allowing weaker ciphers to be used during SSL BIND operations.
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 LDAP interface in Novell eDirectory versions prior to 9.0.3.1 did not strictly enforce configured cipher restrictions, allowing weak or deprecated ciphers to be used during SSL/TLS BIND operations. This could enable man-in-the-middle attacks or exposure of sensitive authentication data.
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< 9.0.3.1CVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/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 installed eDirectory versionUse the eDirectory version detection method appropriate for your deployment (e.g., ndsd --version, LDAP query to version attribute, or check via iMonitor/ConsoleOne). Compare the version number to the affected range: versions prior to 9.0.3.1 are vulnerable.Affected if The installed version is less than 9.0.3.1 (e.g., 9.0.2, 9.0.1, 8.x)
-
Locate LDAP SSL/TLS configurationAccess the eDirectory LDAP configuration through iMonitor, LDAP config files, or the ndsd configuration. Identify where cipher suites and TLS settings are defined for the LDAP service.Affected if Cipher restriction settings cannot be located or verified, or the configuration shows no explicit strong cipher enforcement.
-
Review configured cipher listExamine the LDAP SSL/TLS cipher configuration for the presence of weak or deprecated ciphers (e.g., NULL ciphers, export-grade ciphers, older SSL versions, known-weak TLS ciphers).Affected if Weak ciphers are listed as allowed, or no explicit whitelist of strong ciphers is configured.
-
Test SSL/TLS cipher acceptanceUse an SSL/TLS scanning tool (such as nmap with ssl-enum-ciphers or openssl s_client) against the LDAP port (default 636 for LDAPS or 389 with STARTTLS) to enumerate which ciphers the server actually accepts.Affected if The scan reveals acceptance of weak ciphers (e.g., SSLv3, TLS 1.0, or known-weak cipher suites).
You are affected if eDirectory version is below 9.0.3.1 AND weak ciphers are either not explicitly blocked or are still accepted by the LDAP service.
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 data9.0.3.1
Upgrade to eDirectory 9.0.3.1 or later, or explicitly configure the LDAP service to reject weak ciphers and only accept strong TLS cipher suites.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-9267 — 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-2017-9267 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