dbcve.org
Weblogic ServerApplication · Bea

CVE-2004-2696

MEDIUM · 5.5 CVSS v2.0 Published 2004-12-31
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
61/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Remotely reachable 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
BEA WebLogic Server and WebLogic Express 6.1, 7.0, and 8.1, when using Remote Method Invocation (RMI) over Internet Inter-ORB Protocol (IIOP), does not properly handle when multiple logins for different users coming from the same client, which could cause an "unexpected user identity" to be used in an RMI call.

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

BEA WebLogic Server and WebLogic Express 6.1 through 8.1 contain an identity confusion vulnerability when using RMI over IIOP. The server fails to properly maintain separate user identities when multiple logins occur from the same client, causing an unexpected (potentially privilege-escalated) user identity to be used in subsequent RMI calls.

MitigationIf RMI over IIOP is not required, disable the IIOP protocol in WebLogic. Otherwise, apply vendor patches or upgrade to a supported WebLogic version. Implement proper session isolation and authentication handling for RMI calls.

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
Weblogic ServerApplication
Affected:= 6.1= 7.0= 7.0.0.1= 8.1

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
Low
Authentication
Single
Confidentiality
Partial
Integrity
Partial
Availability
None

AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/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 WebLogic version
    Check the installed BEA WebLogic Server or WebLogic Express version by inspecting the registry, startup scripts, or the BEA home directory structure. Look for version files in the BEA installation directory or check the product version via the WebLogic Administration Console.
    Affected if The installed version is 6.1, 7.0, 7.0.0.1, or 8.1 (any of the listed affected versions).
  2. Confirm IIOP protocol is enabled
    Inspect the WebLogic domain configuration files (config.xml) for the IIOP service settings. Check the Administration Console under Services > IIOP or examine the config.xml file for <iiop-enabled> or similar IIOP-related configuration elements.
    Affected if IIOP protocol is explicitly enabled in the WebLogic domain configuration.
  3. Verify RMI over IIOP is in use
    Examine the Java client applications or server-side code to determine if RMI calls are configured to use the IIOP protocol. Look for RMI registry references using the IIOP protocol (typically using 'iiop://' URLs or Context.PROVIDER_URL with IIOP).
    Affected if RMI clients are configured to communicate via IIOP instead of T3 or other WebLogic-native protocols.
  4. Check for shared client session handling
    Review application code to determine if multiple user logins can occur from the same client JVM or connection context. Examine session management and identity propagation logic in RMI calls.
    Affected if The application allows or expects multiple distinct user logins from a single client process where identity could be confused.

A user is affected if they run any of the affected versions (6.1, 7.0, 7.0.0.1, or 8.1) AND have IIOP enabled with RMI over IIOP in use, particularly when the application handles multiple logins from the same client.

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

If RMI over IIOP is not required, disable the IIOP protocol in WebLogic. Otherwise, apply vendor patches or upgrade to a supported WebLogic version. Implement proper session isolation and authentication handling for RMI calls.

Fix this in Weblogic Server Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation8.0 h
  • Testing4.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
18.0 hours of engineering $3,200
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,120.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2004-2696 — 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-2004-2696 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