CVE Intelligence
Skip to main content
HIGH

CVE-2017-16331

CVE-2017-16331 Vulnerability Analysis & Exploit Intelligence

Multiple exploitable buffer overflow vulnerabilities exist in the PubNub message handler for the "cc" channel of Insteon Hub running firmware version 1012. Specially crafted commands sent through the PubNub service can cause a stack-based buffer overflow overwriting arbitrary data. An attacker should send an authenticated HTTP request to trigger this vulnerability. In cmd s_event_alarm, at 0x9d01ebd4, the value for the `s_tid` key is copied using `strcpy` to the buffer at `$sp+0x2b0`.This buffer is 32 bytes large, sending anything longer will cause a buffer overflow.

Published Updated Sources: cvelistV5, talos

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the scoring sources call it.

Exploitation

Unreported

no source claims exploitation

EPSS

1%

chance of exploitation in 30 days

Affects

insteon

hub

CVSS base

8.5

HIGH

CISA SSVC assessment

Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses · SSVC 2.0.3. A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.

CISA

Exploitation

None

none · proof-of-concept · active

Automatable

Yes

can an attacker script all four kill-chain steps

Technical impact

Total

partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Affected scope

The catalog records vendors and products as separate lists, not pairs, so which product belongs to which vendor is not something this page can say.

Vendors (1)

Products (1)

hub

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactSource
8.5CVSS 3.0HIGHcvelistV5

Weakness & attack patterns

  • CWE-121

References

1 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

  • insteonevery CVE for this vendor
  • CWE-121other pages naming this weakness

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

  • No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
  • No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
  • No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.