CVE-2010-3197
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 9.7 before FP2 does not perform the expected access control on the monitor administrative views in the SYSIBMADM schema, which allows remote attackers to obtain sensitive information via unspecified 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 · high confidenceIBM DB2 9.7 before Fix Pack 2 fails to enforce proper access controls on monitor administrative views within the SYSIBMADM schema, allowing unauthenticated remote attackers to potentially view sensitive system monitoring information that should be restricted.
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= 9.7CVSS 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
- None
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:N/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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Check installed DB2 versionRun the command: db2level or execute: SELECT GET_VENDOR_VERSION, VERSION() AS VERSION FROM SYSIBM.SYSDUMMY1Affected if The version displayed is not 9.7 (then not affected)
-
Confirm DB2 version is 9.7Examine the version output from step 1 - look for version number 9.7 in the outputAffected if The version does not show 9.7 (then not affected)
-
Check Fix Pack levelRun db2level and look for the Fix Pack or Fix Pack number in the output (for example, 'Fix Pack 2', 'FP2', or similar)Affected if The output shows Fix Pack 1, no Fix Pack number, or a version earlier than Fix Pack 2 (this means the environment is affected)
-
Verify SYSIBMADM schema accessibilityConnect to the database and attempt to query a SYSIBMADM view, for example: SELECT * FROM SYSIBMADM.SNAPDB or SELECT * FROM SYSIBMADM.MON_GET_CONNECTIONAffected if Queries execute successfully without proper authentication or authorization errors (indicates the vulnerable access control state)
The environment is affected if running DB2 version 9.7 without Fix Pack 2 or later applied, as the access controls on SYSIBMADM schema views are not properly enforced in earlier versions.
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 version 9.7 Fix Pack 2 or later to apply the access control patches for the SYSIBMADM schema views.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,328.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2010-3197 — 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-2010-3197 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