OwncloudApplication
CVE-2017-9338
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 · uneditedInadequate escaping lead to XSS vulnerability in the search module in ownCloud Server before 8.2.12, 9.0.x before 9.0.10, 9.1.x before 9.1.6, and 10.0.x before 10.0.2. To be exploitable a user has to write or paste malicious content into the search dialogue.
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 confidenceInadequate output escaping in ownCloud's search module allows stored XSS via malicious content pasted into the search dialogue. User-supplied input is rendered without proper HTML entity encoding, enabling script execution in the context of other users' sessions.
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
OwncloudApplication
< 8.2.12>= 9.0.0, < 9.0.10>= 9.1.0, < 9.1.6>= 10.0.0, < 10.0.2CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/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 ownCloud versionLog into ownCloud as an administrator and navigate to the Admin settings page (gear icon > Admin). The version number is displayed at the bottom of the left sidebar. Alternatively, check the version file at /owncloud/version.php or look for the version in the database (oc_appconfig table).Affected if The installed version falls within any of these ranges: < 8.2.12, >= 9.0.0 and < 9.0.10, >= 9.1.0 and < 9.1.6, or >= 10.0.0 and < 10.0.2
-
Verify search module is accessibleConfirm that the search functionality is available to users. The search icon or search bar should be visible in the web interface. The search module is part of ownCloud core and is enabled by default.Affected if The search module is enabled and users can input text into the search field (this is the default state in affected versions)
-
Check search module configurationAs an admin, navigate to Apps > Your Apps (or the app management section). Verify that the Search app or Core Search app is enabled. In the database, check the oc_appconfig table for entries where appid contains 'search'.Affected if The search module is listed as enabled in the database or app management interface
A user is affected if their ownCloud installation version is less than 8.2.12, between 9.0.0-9.0.9, between 9.1.0-9.1.5, or between 10.0.0-10.0.1, and the search functionality is enabled (which is the default).
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 data8.2.129.0.109.1.6
Upgrade ownCloud Server to version 8.2.12, 9.0.10, 9.1.6, or 10.0.2 or later. As a workaround, restrict user access to the search functionality until patches can be applied.
Fix this in Owncloud
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing1.0 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 $1,744.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-9338 — 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-2017-9338 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