CVE-2009-3471
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 · uneditedIBM DB2 8 before FP18, 9.1 before FP8, 9.5 before FP4, and 9.7 before FP2 does not perform the expected drops of certain table functions upon a loss of privileges by the functions' definers, which has unspecified impact and remote attack vectors.
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 confidenceIBM DB2 fails to automatically drop certain table functions when the users who defined those functions lose their privileges. This can leave orphaned functions in the database with potential unintended access or execution, representing a privilege escalation or unauthorized access risk.
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= 8.0= 9.1= 9.5CVSS 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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify installed DB2 versionRun command: db2level (Linux/Unix) or db2ls (Windows). Alternatively, connect to database and run: SELECT SERVICE_LEVEL FROM SYSIBMADM.ENV_PROD_INFOAffected if Version is 8.0, 9.1, or 9.5 (without respective FP18, FP8, FP4 fixes)
-
List all table functions in the databaseConnect to the database and run: SELECT FUNC_SCHEMA, FUNC_NAME, CREATE_TIME, DEFINER FROM SYSCAT.FUNCTIONS WHERE FUNC_TYPE='T'Affected if Any table functions exist in the database
-
Identify function owners and their current privilege statusFor each function owner found in step 2, query: SELECT GRANTEE, AUTHIDTYPE FROM SYSCAT.DBAUTH WHERE GRANTEE = '<function_owner>' and SECUREWITH='Y' or check if user still exists: SELECT USERNAME FROM SYSIBMADM.USERS WHERE USERNAME = '<function_owner>'Affected if Function owners no longer have the required privileges or user accounts are disabled/removed
-
Check for orphaned table functionsCompare function owners from SYSCAT.FUNCTIONS against current valid DB2 users in SYSIBMADM.USERS or SYSCAT.SCHEMAAUTH. Orphaned functions have owners that no longer exist in the systemAffected if Table functions exist with owners who are no longer valid DB2 users or have lost their privileges
User is affected if running DB2 v8.0, v9.1, or v9.5 without their respective fixed maintenance levels AND table functions exist owned by users who no longer have valid privileges in the database.
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 dataUpgrade IBM DB2 to the fixed version (FP18 for v8, FP8 for v9.1, FP4 for v9.5, FP2 for v9.7). Additionally, audit existing table functions and manually remove any that are owned by users who should no longer have those privileges.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 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 $6,656.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2009-3471 — 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-2009-3471 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