CVE-2017-9563
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 First Citizens Community Bank fccb/id809930960 app 3.0.1 for iOS does not verify X.509 certificates from SSL servers, which allows man-in-the-middle attackers to spoof servers and obtain sensitive information 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 First Citizens Community Bank iOS app 3.0.1 fails to validate X.509 certificates from SSL servers, allowing man-in-the-middle attackers to intercept encrypted communications by presenting fraudulent certificates. This enables credential theft and data interception during transit.
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= 3.0.1CVSS 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
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/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 if Meafinancial Fccb app is installedCheck iOS devices for the First Citizens Community Bank app (Meafinancial Fccb) in installed applications. On a managed device, use mobile device management (MDM) software or manually inspect the device's application list.Affected if The app is present on any iOS device in the organization
-
Check the installed version of the appOn the iOS device, go to Settings > General > iPhone Storage (or Apps), find the Meafinancial Fccb app, and view the version number displayed next to the app name.Affected if The version shown is exactly 3.0.1
-
Verify app behavior with invalid certificatesUse a proxy tool (such as Burp Suite or mitmproxy) configured to present an untrusted or self-signed SSL certificate. Attempt to authenticate or perform transactions within the app while the proxy intercepts traffic.Affected if The app allows connections and functions normally when presented with an invalid or untrusted certificate, indicating certificate validation is not occurring
-
Check for certificate pinning implementationPerform static analysis of the app binary or use runtime inspection tools (such as objection or Frida) to examine the app's network security implementation for certificate pinning functions.Affected if Certificate pinning is not implemented or can be bypassed, meaning the app accepts arbitrary certificates
If the Meafinancial Fccb app version 3.0.1 is installed and accepts invalid SSL certificates without validation, the environment is affected by this CVE.
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 dataImplement proper SSL certificate validation within the app, including certificate chain verification and optionally pinning to trusted certificates to prevent MITM attacks.
- Consultation3.0 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 $4,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-9563 — 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-2017-9563 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