Rational ClearquestApplication · Ibm

CVE-2008-5329

HIGH · 7.5 CVSS v2.0 Published 2008-12-05
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to after 7.0.0.3 or later.
See remediation →
84/100
Remediation priority · High
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
ClearQuest Web in IBM Rational ClearQuest MultiSite before 7.1 allows remote servers to direct a client's submissions and changes to an arbitrary database by specifying multiple comma-separated server identifiers on the JTLRMIREGISTRYSERVERS line in a jtl.properties file.

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 · moderate confidence

IBM Rational ClearQuest MultiSite before version 7.1 contains a vulnerability in ClearQuest Web where remote servers can redirect client submissions and changes to an arbitrary database by specifying multiple comma-separated server identifiers in the JTLRMIREGISTRYSERVERS line of a jtl.properties configuration file. This allows an attacker to intercept or redirect data by controlling the server registry list.

MitigationUpgrade to ClearQuest MultiSite 7.1 or later. Additionally, verify that jtl.properties files contain only trusted, validated server identifiers and consider implementing integrity checks on configuration files.

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
Rational ClearquestApplication
Affected:<= 7.0.0.3= 7.0.0.0= 7.0.0.1= 7.0.0.2= 7.0.1= 7.0.1.1= 7.0.1.2

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
None
Confidentiality
Partial
Integrity
Partial
Availability
Partial

AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P

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. Determine installed ClearQuest version
    Check the ClearQuest application version through the About dialog in the ClearQuest client or by querying the installed packages. On Windows, this may be visible in Add/Remove Programs. On Unix, check the installation directory for version files.
    Affected if The installed version is 7.0.0.0, 7.0.0.1, 7.0.0.2, 7.0.0.3, 7.0.1, 7.0.1.1, or 7.0.1.2 (any version before 7.1).
  2. Locate the jtl.properties configuration file
    Search for the file named jtl.properties in the ClearQuest Web configuration directory. This file is typically found in the ClearQuest Web server's configuration area, often under the web application deployment directory or in a shared configuration folder.
    Affected if The jtl.properties file exists and contains a JTLRMIREGISTRYSERVERS parameter.
  3. Inspect the JTLRMIREGISTRYSERVERS parameter
    Open the jtl.properties file and locate the line containing JTLRMIREGISTRYSERVERS. Examine the value assigned to this parameter.
    Affected if The parameter contains multiple comma-separated server identifiers (for example: server1,server2,server3) rather than a single trusted server.
  4. Verify server registry list integrity
    Review each server identifier listed in the JTLRMIREGISTRYSERVERS line. Confirm that all listed servers are trusted, internal servers and that none point to unknown or external addresses.
    Affected if Any server identifier in the list points to an untrusted, unknown, or externally controlled server that you have not explicitly authorized.

You are affected if you are running any ClearQuest version before 7.1 AND your jtl.properties file contains a JTLRMIREGISTRYSERVERS line with multiple comma-separated server identifiers that include untrusted servers.

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
Upgrade available Upgrade to a release after 7.0.0.3
Interim mitigation

Upgrade to ClearQuest MultiSite 7.1 or later. Additionally, verify that jtl.properties files contain only trusted, validated server identifiers and consider implementing integrity checks on configuration files.

Fix this in Rational Clearquest Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation2.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
11.0 hours of engineering $1,970
Get the upgrade done

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,152.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2008-5329 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2008-5329 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