CVE-2010-3474
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 FP3 does not perform the expected drops or invalidations of dependent functions upon a loss of privileges by the functions' owners, which allows remote authenticated users to bypass intended access restrictions via calls to these functions, a different vulnerability than CVE-2009-3471.
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 FP3 fails to properly drop or invalidate dependent functions when the functions' owners lose privileges. This allows authenticated remote users to bypass intended access restrictions by calling functions that should no longer be accessible after privilege revocation.
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= 9.7= 9.7.0.1= 9.7.0.2CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Check DB2 versionRun the db2level command or query SELECT * FROM SYSIBM.SYSVERSION to retrieve the installed DB2 version and fix pack levelAffected if The version displayed is 9.7, 9.7.0.1, or 9.7.0.2 (these are the affected versions before FP3)
-
Identify function owners whose privileges were revokedQuery SYSCAT.SCHEMAAUTH to find schemas where GRANTOR or GRANTEE privileges may have been revoked, then cross-reference with SYSCAT.FUNCTIONS to identify functions owned by those usersAffected if Functions exist that are owned by users whose privileges have been revoked but the functions still persist in the database
-
Check for dependent functions that should have been droppedQuery SYSCAT.FUNCTIONAUTH to identify functions that depend on schemas/functions owned by users whose privileges were revoked. Compare against SYSCAT.FUNCTIONS to see if orphaned dependent functions still existAffected if Dependent functions remain accessible that should have been dropped or invalidated when the owner lost privileges
-
Verify function accessibility for revoked ownersAttempt to execute functions owned by users who have had privileges revoked, or query SYSCAT.FUNCTIONS with OWNER matching users whose privileges were revoked to see if they are still callableAffected if Functions are still callable by authenticated users even though the function owners no longer have the required privileges
You are affected if your DB2 version is 9.7.0.2 or earlier and you have functions in the database whose owners have had privileges revoked but those functions remain accessible.
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 dataApply IBM DB2 Fix Pack 3 or later to resolve the privilege escalation vulnerability. Consider manually reviewing and dropping dependent functions when owner privileges are revoked as an interim measure.
- 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-2010-3474 — 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-2010-3474 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