CVE-2017-9632
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 · uneditedA Missing Encryption of Sensitive Data issue was discovered in PDQ Manufacturing LaserWash G5 and G5 S Series all versions, LaserWash M5, all versions, LaserWash 360 and 360 Plus, all versions, LaserWash AutoXpress and AutoExpress Plus, all versions, LaserJet, all versions, ProTouch Tandem, all versions, ProTouch ICON, all versions, and ProTouch AutoGloss, all versions. The username and password are transmitted insecurely.
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 confidencePDQ Manufacturing LaserWash and ProTouch car wash control systems transmit usernames and passwords in plaintext without encryption. An attacker on the network can intercept these credentials to gain unauthorized access to the car wash control system.
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 dataall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsCVSS 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
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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 the car wash control system model and firmwareLocate the product label or access the system admin interface to determine the exact model (LaserWash G5, G5 S, M5, 360, 360 Plus, Autoxpress, Autoxpress Plus, or Laserjet) and firmware versionAffected if The device is any of the listed PDQ LaserWash models (G5, G5 S, M5, 360, 360 Plus, Autoxpress, Autoxpress Plus, or Laserjet)
-
Capture network traffic during loginUse a network sniffer (such as Wireshark) to capture network packets while performing a login or authentication operation to the car wash control systemAffected if Username and password fields are visible in plaintext within the captured network packets
-
Verify if SSL/TLS encryption is used for authenticationExamine the captured traffic for the presence of TLS/SSL handshake (look for TCP port 443, or TLS handshake messages) during the authentication processAffected if No encryption protocol (TLS/SSL) is detected in the authentication traffic and credentials are transmitted in cleartext
-
Check for HTTPS or secure web interfaceVerify if the web interface login page uses HTTPS by checking the browser URL bar for a padlock icon or by examining if the URL begins with https://Affected if The login interface uses plain HTTP (http://) instead of encrypted HTTPS
A user is affected if their car wash system is any PDQ LaserWash model (G5, G5 S, M5, 360, 360 Plus, Autoxpress, Autoxpress Plus, or Laserjet) and network traffic analysis reveals plaintext username and password transmission during authentication.
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 TLS/SSL encryption for all authentication channels and network communication. If the devices cannot support encryption, network isolation and firewall rules should be applied to restrict access to trusted networks only.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $10,240.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-9632 — 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-2017-9632 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