CVE-2017-9269
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 libzypp before August 2018 GPG keys attached to YUM repositories were not correctly pinned, allowing malicious repository mirrors to silently downgrade to unsigned repositories with potential malicious content.
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 confidencelibzypp (the ZYPP package management library used in SUSE/openSUSE) failed to correctly pin GPG keys for YUM repositories, allowing a man-in-the-middle attacker on the repository mirror network to redirect systems to unsigned repositories and inject malicious packages without detection.
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 dataall versionsCVSS 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
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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.
-
Confirm libzypp is installedRun 'rpm -q libzypp' or 'zypper info libzypp' to check if the library is present on the systemAffected if libzypp is not installed - the system is not using the affected component
-
Check installed libzypp versionRun 'rpm -q --qf '%{VERSION}-%{RELEASE}' libzypp' or 'zypper info libzypp' to retrieve the exact version numberAffected if The version is older than the patched releases issued before August 2018 (any version prior to the fix)
-
Inspect repository GPG configurationExamine /etc/zypp/repos.d/ directory for .repo files and check each repository entry for 'gpgcheck=1' and 'gpgkey=' directivesAffected if Any repository configuration lacks 'gpgcheck=1' or does not specify a 'gpgkey=' URL pointing to a valid GPG key
-
Check default zypp configurationInspect /etc/zypp/zypp.conf for 'gpgcheck' global setting under the '[main]' sectionAffected if The global 'gpgcheck' is set to 'false' or is absent, disabling signature verification by default
-
Verify repo signatures with zypperRun 'zypper repos --details' to list all configured repositories with their verification status, then test with 'zypper refresh --force' to trigger GPG validationAffected if Repositories report as 'Yes' or 'Enabled' without a GPG key fingerprint displayed, or refresh succeeds without GPG signature prompts
A system is affected if it runs any unpatched version of libzypp on openSUSE/SUSE and has repositories configured without explicit GPG signature verification (missing gpgcheck=1 or gpgkey= directives).
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 dataUpdate libzypp to the patched version released before August 2018 (any version after the fix). For systems that cannot immediately update, verify repository configurations explicitly require GPG signature verification and avoid using untrusted mirrors.
- 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-2017-9269 — 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-2017-9269 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