CVE-2010-4603
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 Rational ClearQuest 7.0.x before 7.0.1.11, 7.1.1.x before 7.1.1.4, and 7.1.2.x before 7.1.2.1 does not prevent modification of back-reference fields, which allows remote authenticated users to interfere with intended record relationships, and possibly cause a denial of service (loop) or have unspecified other impact, by (1) adding or (2) removing a back reference.
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 Rational ClearQuest fails to enforce integrity constraints on back-reference fields, allowing authenticated remote users to arbitrarily add or remove record relationships. This can corrupt intended data relationships and potentially create recursive loops causing denial of service.
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= 7.0= 7.0.0.0= 7.0.0.1= 7.0.0.2= 7.0.0.3= 7.0.0.4= 7.0.0.5= 7.0.0.6= 7.0.0.7= 7.0.0.8= 7.0.0.9= 7.0.1CVSS 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
- Single
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/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.
-
Determine installed ClearQuest versionAccess the ClearQuest user interface and navigate to Help > About IBM Rational ClearQuest, or check the version through the cqversion command line utility if availableAffected if The displayed version matches any of these: 7.0, 7.0.0.0, 7.0.0.1, 7.0.0.2, 7.0.0.3, 7.0.0.4, 7.0.0.5, 7.0.0.6, 7.0.0.7, 7.0.0.8, 7.0.0.9, or 7.0.1
-
Verify back-reference field usageReview your ClearQuest schema and record types to identify if any record types have child-parent relationships implemented through back-reference fieldsAffected if Your ClearQuest schema contains record types with back-reference fields that define parent-child relationships between records
-
Confirm authentication methodCheck if remote users authenticate to ClearQuest through the web client, ClearQuest Windows client, or API connectionsAffected if Authenticated users can access ClearQuest and create, modify, or delete record relationships through any client interface
-
Assess if users can modify relationshipsDetermine whether authenticated users have permissions to add or remove child records from parent records, or modify links between records that use back-reference fieldsAffected if Users have the ability to modify record relationships without enforced integrity constraints
Your environment is affected if you run any ClearQuest version between 7.0 and 7.0.1 (inclusive) and users can modify record relationships that rely on back-reference fields.
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 the vendor-supplied patches to upgrade to ClearQuest versions 7.0.1.11, 7.1.1.4, or 7.1.2.1 or later to enforce proper validation of back-reference field modifications.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing12.0 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 $7,040.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2010-4603 — 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-2010-4603 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