CVE-2017-9270
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 cryptctl before version 2.0 a malicious server could send RPC requests that could overwrite files outside of the cryptctl key database.
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 confidenceA path traversal vulnerability in cryptctl before version 2.0 allows a malicious server to send crafted RPC requests containing directory traversal sequences (e.g., '../') that bypass path validation, enabling arbitrary file overwrite outside the intended key database directory.
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= 2.0CVSS 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
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/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.
-
Check if cryptctl is installedRun 'rpm -qa | grep cryptctl' on openSUSE systems, or 'which cryptctl' to locate the binaryAffected if cryptctl is found on the system and the version is below 2.0
-
Determine the installed cryptctl versionRun 'cryptctl --version' or check the package version via 'rpm -q cryptctl'Affected if Version is below 2.0 (e.g., 1.x or earlier)
-
Identify if the cryptctl server component is runningCheck running processes for 'cryptctl server' or check for listening ports commonly used by cryptctl RPC servicesAffected if The cryptctl server process is active and accessible on the network
-
Verify RPC access exposureReview network configuration to determine if the cryptctl RPC interface is reachable from untrusted networksAffected if The RPC interface is exposed to network access where a malicious server could connect
A user is affected if cryptctl is installed with a version below 2.0 and the cryptctl server component is running and accessible, allowing potential remote attackers to send malicious RPC requests.
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.
dbcve · scopedUpgrade to cryptctl version 2.0 or later which includes proper path sanitization and validation to prevent directory traversal in RPC file operations.
cryptctl version 2.0 or later
- Identify the current cryptctl version installed in the system
- Upgrade cryptctl to version 2.0 or later using the system package manager (e.g., zypper for openSUSE/SUSE)
- Verify the upgrade was successful by checking the installed version
- Restart any cryptctl services if applicable
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-9270 — 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-2017-9270 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