dbcve.org
Fvb Mobile BankingApplication · Meafinancial

CVE-2017-9575

MEDIUM · 5.9 CVSS v3.0 Published 2017-06-16
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
68/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
The "FVB Mobile Banking" by First Volunteer Bank of Tennessee app 3.1.1 -- aka fvb-mobile-banking/id551018004 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 confidence

The FVB Mobile Banking iOS app 3.1.1 fails to verify X.509 certificate chains from SSL servers, allowing man-in-the-middle attackers to intercept sensitive banking communications by presenting crafted certificates. This is a classic SSL/TLS certificate validation bypass vulnerability.

MitigationImplement proper SSL/TLS certificate validation in the app, including certificate chain verification, hostname validation, and optionally certificate pinning for sensitive endpoints.

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
Fvb Mobile BankingApplication
Affected:= 3.1.1

CVSS 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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify installed app version
    On the iOS device, go to Settings > FVB Mobile Banking (or find the app in the App Library), then tap the app to view version information under 'Version' or 'App Version'. Alternatively, connect the device to a computer with iTunes or Finder and check the app details.
    Affected if The displayed version is 3.1.1 exactly (the only affected version per vendor records)
  2. Confirm SSL certificate chain validation is missing
    Perform a man-in-the-middle test using a tool like Burp Suite, OWASP ZAP, or mitmproxy with a self-signed certificate. Install the mitmproxy CA certificate on the device and configure a proxy. Launch FVB Mobile Banking and attempt to access banking functions while the proxy captures traffic.
    Affected if The app successfully connects to banking servers and transmits data through the proxy without rejecting the untrusted certificate (indicating certificate chain validation is bypassed)
  3. Verify hostname validation is missing
    Using the same MITM setup, configure the proxy to present a valid X.509 certificate signed by a trusted CA but for a different hostname (e.g., present a certificate for 'attacker.com' when connecting to the bank's actual hostname). Attempt to access banking functions through the app.
    Affected if The app accepts the connection and transmits data despite hostname mismatch (indicating hostname validation is not performed)
  4. Check for certificate pinning
    Inspect network traffic during app operation. If the app establishes connections successfully through your MITM proxy (with any untrusted or mismatched certificate), certificate pinning is not enforced. Alternatively, use a jailbroken device or static analysis tools to examine the app binary for pinned certificate public keys or hash values.
    Affected if The app accepts connections through an untrusted MITM proxy at all, indicating no certificate pinning is implemented

You are affected if the FVB Mobile Banking iOS app version 3.1.1 is installed and the app accepts SSL connections through a proxy with untrusted or mismatched certificates, confirming certificate chain and hostname validation are bypassed.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Implement proper SSL/TLS certificate validation in the app, including certificate chain verification, hostname validation, and optionally certificate pinning for sensitive endpoints.

Fix this in Fvb Mobile Banking Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation3.0 h
  • Implementation12.0 h
  • Testing6.0 h
  • Review / QA3.0 h
24.0 hours of engineering $4,200
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,720.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-9575 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2017-9575 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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