CVE-2017-9568
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 financial-plus-mobile-banking/id731070564 app 3.0.3 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 iOS mobile banking app version 3.0.3 fails to validate X.509 certificates during SSL/TLS connections, allowing attackers to present forged certificates and intercept sensitive financial data through man-in-the-middle attacks.
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= 3.0.3CVSS 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.
-
Check the installed app versionOpen the iOS App Store, search for 'Myfpcu Financial Plus Mobile Banking', or go to Settings > General > iPhone Storage > find the app and view its version informationAffected if The version displayed is exactly 3.0.3
-
Verify certificate validation is disabledConfigure a network proxy (such as Burp Suite or Charles Proxy) with an invalid or self-signed SSL certificate, then attempt to intercept traffic from the app while it connects to financial servicesAffected if The app successfully connects and transmits data without rejecting the invalid certificate, indicating certificate validation is not being performed
-
Test for hostname verification failureUse SSL/TLS testing tools to present a valid certificate for a different hostname (e.g., a certificate for attacker's domain instead of the bank's legitimate domain) to the app's endpointsAffected if The app accepts the certificate and establishes a connection despite hostname mismatch, confirming hostname validation is missing
-
Inspect app binary for weak SSL implementationAnalyze the app's binary or decompiled code for usage of NSURLSession or CFNetwork APIs, specifically looking for whether URLSession delegates implement URLSessionTaskDidReceiveChallenge or similar certificate validation methodsAffected if The code shows no implementation of certificate chain validation or hostname verification in delegate methods
If the installed version is exactly 3.0.3 and the app accepts invalid or mismatched SSL certificates during network traffic inspection, the environment is affected by CVE-2017-9568.
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 by ensuring the app verifies the certificate chain, validates the hostname, and ideally implements certificate pinning for sensitive endpoints.
- 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-2017-9568 — 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-2017-9568 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