dbcve.org
Scsb Shelbyville Il Mobile BankingApplication · Meafinancial

CVE-2017-9589

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 "SCSB Shelbyville IL Mobile Banking" by Shelby County State Bank app 3.0.0 -- aka scsb-shelbyville-il-mobile-banking/id938960224 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 iOS mobile banking app fails to validate SSL/TLS server certificates, allowing an attacker to intercept traffic by presenting a fraudulent certificate. The app does not verify the X.509 certificate chain, hostname matching, or certificate validity, enabling man-in-the-middle attacks that can expose sensitive banking credentials and session data.

MitigationImplement proper SSL certificate validation in the app, including chain-of-trust verification, hostname validation, and certificate pinning for the bank's servers to prevent MITM 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
Scsb Shelbyville Il Mobile BankingApplication
Affected:= 3.0.0

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 if the Meafinancial mobile banking app is installed
    On the iOS device, go to Settings > General > iPhone Storage (or Settings > Apps), then look for 'Scsb Shelbyville' or 'Meafinancial' in the app list. Alternatively, check the app icon on the home screen for 'Meafinancial Scsb Shelbyville Il Mobile Banking'.
    Affected if The app is not present on the device, then the user is not affected by this specific CVE.
  2. Determine the installed app version
    In iOS Settings, find the app and tap on it to view the app info, which typically shows the version number. Alternatively, open the App Store, search for the app, and check the version listed. Compare the version to the affected range: version 3.0.0.
    Affected if The installed version is exactly 3.0.0, then the environment matches the affected version for this CVE.
  3. Confirm the vulnerability exists in the app binary
    Perform static analysis by extracting the app IPA file, decompiling or disassembling the binary, and searching for SSL/TLS validation functions (such as 'allowInvalidCertificates', 'validatesSecureCertificate', or delegate methods like 'URLSession:didReceiveChallenge:'). Look for code that disables certificate validation or missing chain-of-trust checks. Alternatively, conduct dynamic testing using a MITM proxy (like Burp Suite or Charles) to intercept traffic and verify whether the app accepts a self-signed certificate without warning.
    Affected if The app accepts a fraudulent or self-signed certificate during MITM testing, or the binary contains code that bypasses SSL validation, then the vulnerability is present and the environment is affected.

The environment is affected only if the Meafinancial Scsb Shelbyville Il Mobile Banking app version 3.0.0 is installed and the app fails to validate SSL/TLS certificates, which can be confirmed through dynamic MITM testing or static binary analysis.

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 certificate validation in the app, including chain-of-trust verification, hostname validation, and certificate pinning for the bank's servers to prevent MITM attacks.

Fix this in Scsb Shelbyville Il Mobile Banking Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation8.0 h
  • Testing4.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
16.0 hours of engineering $2,800
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,480.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-9589 — 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-2017-9589 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