CVE-2017-9569
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 Citizens Bank (TX) cbtx-on-the-go/id892396102 app 3.0.0 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 Citizens Bank iOS mobile application fails to validate X.509 certificates from SSL/TLS servers, allowing an attacker on the same network to intercept traffic by presenting a forged certificate. This is a classic SSL certificate validation bypass vulnerability where the app accepts any certificate presented by the server, enabling 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= 3.0.0CVSS 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
- 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 the vulnerable app is installedCheck iOS devices for the Citizens Bank app - look for an app named 'Citizensbanktx' or 'Cbtx On The Go' in the installed applications list. On a managed device, use Mobile Device Management (MDM) software or check the iOS Settings > General > iPhone/iPad Storage to list installed apps.Affected if The app 'Citizensbanktx' or 'Cbtx On The Go' is present on any iOS device in the environment
-
Verify the installed version is 3.0.0On each device with the app installed, check the app version. In iOS, go to the App Store listing for the app, or use MDM to query app metadata. The version is displayed as 'Version 3.0.0' in the App Store or in the app's Info.plist under CFBundleShortVersionString.Affected if The installed version equals exactly 3.0.0 (no other versions are affected per the advisory)
-
Confirm the app handles sensitive financial dataDetermine if the app is used for banking operations by checking if it connects to Citizens Bank servers for transactions, account access, or other financial operations. This is typically known from corporate policy or app function.Affected if The app processes banking credentials, transaction data, or other sensitive financial information over network connections
A user is affected if they have Citizensbanktx Cbtx On The Go version 3.0.0 installed on any iOS device and use it to access banking services, as the app accepts invalid certificates allowing traffic interception.
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/TLS certificate chain validation in the iOS app using standard URLSession APIs or explicitly configure NSURLConnection/NSURLSession to require valid certificate verification, optionally adding certificate pinning for sensitive endpoints.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-9569 — 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-2017-9569 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