CVE-2017-9582
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 "BNB Mobile Banking" by Brady National Bank app 3.0.0 -- aka bnb-mobile-banking/id674215747 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 BNB Mobile Banking iOS app version 3.0.0 fails to validate X.509 certificates from SSL servers, allowing man-in-the-middle attackers to intercept encrypted communications by presenting crafted certificates. This enables credential theft and session hijacking.
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 installed BNB Mobile Banking versionOpen the iOS Settings app, navigate to General > iPhone Storage (or Apps), find BNB Mobile Banking, and note the version number listed. Alternatively, check in the App Store app listing for the app.Affected if The installed version is exactly 3.0.0 (no other versions are affected per the advisory).
-
Verify network traffic interception capabilityInstall a trusted proxy tool (such as Burp Suite or Charles Proxy) on a computer, configure the iOS device to use that proxy with a custom CA certificate, and attempt to intercept traffic from the BNB Mobile Banking app.Affected if The app successfully establishes connections through the proxy without certificate validation errors, meaning it accepts the untrusted CA certificate presented by the proxy.
-
Check for certificate validation in network requestsUse a dynamic analysis tool like Objection or Frida to hook NSURLSession or NSURLConnection methods used by the app. Inspect whether the delegate methods for certificate validation (such as URLSession:didReceiveChallenge:completionHandler:) are properly implemented to validate server trust.Affected if The app does not implement custom certificate validation logic, or the validation logic always returns true/allows connections regardless of certificate chain validity.
You are affected if the installed BNB Mobile Banking iOS app version is exactly 3.0.0 and network traffic can be intercepted using a man-in-the-middle proxy without triggering certificate validation errors.
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 validation in the iOS app using native URLSession APIs with trust evaluation, or configure NSURLSession to use default valid certificate chains.
- Consultation2.0 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 $3,664.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-9582 — 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-2017-9582 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