Filenet Content ManagerApplication · Ibm

CVE-2010-3319

MEDIUM · 5.0 CVSS v2.0 Published 2010-09-13
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
59/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
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
IBM Records Manager (RM) 4.5.x before 4.5.1.1-IER-FP001 places a session token in the URI, which might allow remote attackers to obtain sensitive information by reading a Referer log 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 · high confidence

IBM Records Manager 4.5.x before 4.5.1.1-IER-FP001 embeds session tokens directly in the URI (URL) rather than using secure session management mechanisms like HTTP-only cookies or headers. This exposes session tokens in server access logs, browser history, proxy logs, and Referer headers, allowing attackers who obtain log files to hijack user sessions.

MitigationMigrate session token handling from URI parameters to HTTP-only cookie-based or header-based session management. Additionally, implement server-side log scrubbing to remove or mask any sensitive URI parameters that should not be recorded.

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
Filenet Content ManagerApplication
Affected:= 4.5.0= 4.5.1

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
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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify installed IBM Filenet Content Manager or Records Manager version
    Locate the product installation directory and check version files, typically found in the installation root or via the IBM Administration Console for Content Manager. Common locations include the version.info file or the product's About dialog in the admin interface.
    Affected if The installed version is 4.5.0 or 4.5.1 (any version before 4.5.1.1-IER-FP001)
  2. Examine HTTP access logs for session tokens in URIs
    Review the web server or application server access logs (such as IBM HTTP Server access.log or WebSphere application logs) and search for URI patterns containing session identifiers, query parameters with names like jsessionid, sid, or sessiontoken.
    Affected if Session tokens appear in the URI path or query string within server access logs
  3. Inspect browser history or network traces for URI-embedded session IDs
    Capture or review a sample HTTP request made to the application (using browser developer tools or a proxy) and observe whether the session identifier is passed as a URL parameter rather than in a cookie or HTTP header.
    Affected if The session ID is transmitted as part of the request URL rather than in a Set-Cookie header or custom HTTP header
  4. Review application session management configuration
    Check the IBM Filenet Content Manager configuration files (such as the EAR deployment descriptors or web.xml) for session tracking configuration settings. Look for session-config elements and verify whether the tracking mode is set to URL rather than cookie.
    Affected if Session tracking is configured to use URL rewriting (cookies=false or tracking-mode=URL) rather than cookie-based or header-based session management

You are affected if running IBM Filenet Content Manager version 4.5.0 or 4.5.1 AND session identifiers are being passed in URLs rather than through secure HTTP-only cookies or custom headers.

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

Migrate session token handling from URI parameters to HTTP-only cookie-based or header-based session management. Additionally, implement server-side log scrubbing to remove or mask any sensitive URI parameters that should not be recorded.

Fix this in Filenet Content Manager Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation8.0 h
  • Testing6.0 h
  • Review / QA4.0 h
22.0 hours of engineering $3,860
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2010-3319 — 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-2010-3319 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