NetApp Clustered Data ONTAP 8.3.1 does not properly verify X.509 certificates from TLS servers, which allows man-in-the-middle attackers to
NetApp Clustered Data ONTAP 8.3.1 does not properly verify X.509 certificates from TLS servers, which allows man-in-the-middle attackers to spoof servers and obtain sensitive information via a crafted certificate.
- Published
- Apr 7, 2016
- Updated
- Jun 16, 2026
- EPSS
- 0.6% · 46th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-20
Sign in to follow · You’ll be notified if a followed record enters KEV, gets an exploit or is updated.
Report tools
Action score
27
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 27 / 40 · 6.8 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 0 / 30 · 0.6%
Affected systems
| Vendor | Product | CPE |
|---|---|---|
| netapp | clustered data ontap | cpe:2.3:o:netapp:clustered_data_ontap |
Affected versions
NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.
- netapp clustered data ontap8.3.1
Same product
netapp: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2017-12421NetApp Clustered Data ONTAP 8.3.x before 8.3.2P12 allows remote authenticated users to execute arbitrary code on the storage controller via 36Monitor
- CVE-2017-12420Heap-based buffer overflow in the SMB implementation in NetApp Clustered Data ONTAP before 8.3.2P8 and 9.0 before P2 allows remote authentic36Monitor
- CVE-2018-5490Read-Only export policy rules are not correctly enforced in Clustered Data ONTAP 8.3 Release Candidate versions and therefore may allow more35Monitor
- CVE-2022-23241Clustered Data ONTAP versions 9.11.1 through 9.11.1P2 with SnapLock configured FlexGroups are susceptible to a vulnerability which could all32Monitor
- CVE-2019-5491Clustered Data ONTAP versions prior to 9.1P15 and 9.3 prior to 9.3P7 are susceptible to a vulnerability which discloses sensitive informatio31Monitor
- CVE-2017-5988NetApp Clustered Data ONTAP 8.1 through 9.1P1, when NFS or SMB is enabled, allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service via unspecif31Monitor
Remediation
Which version to upgrade to
Fix versions compiled from the vendor, package registries and Microsoft. Verify the vendor's note before upgrading.
No fix version is recorded for this entry. Check the references for vendor advisories.
Exploit status
No known public exploit
No public exploit has been observed yet. That doesn't mean you're safe, only that the bar is a little higher.
Research context
For pentesters and researchers: attack profile, score disagreement, timeline, patch commits, credits, variant and chain candidates, bug bounty scope. All derived from existing data; no exploit code.
Timeline
From publication to today: proof of concept, Metasploit module, CISA KEV and fix record. Dates are as reported by the sources.
No dated events beyond publication.
FIRST EPSS daily score; only changes of 0.01 or more are recorded (step chart).
Patch and commit links
Commit, PR and diff links among the references. A starting point for patch-diffing and variant hunting; fixes, not exploits.
No commit or PR link among the references.
Credits
All researchersFinders, reporters and analysts named in the CNA record. Click a name for that researcher’s other records.
No credits in the CNA record.
Variant candidates
Same product, same weakness class, within 18 months. If the patch missed the root cause, the sibling bug is here.
No nightly-computed relations.
Chain candidates
An authentication bypass and a privilege-requiring bug in the same product, published close together: combined they may become an unauthenticated path.
—
Bug bounty scope
No known public program.
Source: bounty-targets-data (public HackerOne, Bugcrowd, Intigriti, YesWeHack listings).
Technical details
Attack conditions
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it.
- No account or password is required.
- No user action is required.
- Special conditions such as timing or configuration are required.
If successful
- Confidentiality
- none
- Integrity
- high · data or configuration can be modified
- Availability
- none
Impact can extend beyond the vulnerable component (scope changes).
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- High
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality impact
- None
- Integrity impact
- High
- Availability impact
- None
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-20 · Improper Input ValidationCVSS vector
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:N
nvd-primary
Attack context
MITRE CAPEC attack patterns and ATT&CK techniques for this weakness class (CWE). A starting point for detection rules and threat hunting.
Attack patterns (CAPEC)
- Buffer Overflow via Environment VariablesCAPEC-10likelihood: High · High
- Server Side Include (SSI) InjectionCAPEC-101likelihood: High · High
- Cross Zone ScriptingCAPEC-104likelihood: Medium · High
- Command Line Execution through SQL InjectionCAPEC-108likelihood: Low · Very High
- Object Relational Mapping InjectionCAPEC-109likelihood: Low · High
- SQL Injection through SOAP Parameter TamperingCAPEC-110likelihood: High · Very High
- Double EncodingCAPEC-120likelihood: Low · Medium
- Subverting Environment Variable ValuesCAPEC-13likelihood: High · Very High
ATT&CK techniques
- Obfuscated Files or InformationT1027
- Masquerading: Invalid Code SignatureT1036.001
- Steal Web Session CookieT1539
- Subvert Trust Controls: Code SigningT1553.002
- Impair Defenses:Impair Command History LoggingT1562.003
- Hijack Execution Flow:Dynamic Linker HijackingT1574.006
- Hijack Execution Flow:Path Interception by PATH Environment VariableT1574.007
Noroxi analysis
No Noroxi analysis for this record yet
We don't hand-write analysis for all 385,000+ vulnerabilities; that wouldn't be honest. For notable, high-impact vulnerabilities our team writes the mechanism, detection and remediation steps.
We use this product, ask for helpChange log
No changes recorded on tracked fields yet. Score, KEV, exploit maturity and fix status changes appear here.
References
Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.