CVE-2011-0757
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 9.1 before FP10, 9.5 before FP6a, and 9.7 before FP2 on Linux, UNIX, and Windows does not properly revoke the DBADM authority, which allows remote authenticated users to execute non-DDL statements by leveraging previous possession of this authority.
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 versions 9.1 before FP10, 9.5 before FP6a, and 9.7 before FP2 on Linux, UNIX, and Windows fail to properly revoke the DBADM (Database Administrator) authority. This authorization bypass allows remote authenticated users who previously held DBADM authority to continue executing non-DDL statements even after that authority has been formally revoked.
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<= 9.1= 9.1<= 9.5= 9.5<= 9.7= 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
- 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.
-
Check installed DB2 version and fix pack levelRun 'db2level' command or query 'SELECT GET_VARCHAR_FOR_BIT_DATA(PACKAGE_VERSION) FROM SYSCAT.PACKAGES WHERE PACKAGE_NAME = 'NULLID''Affected if Version is 9.1 before FP10, 9.5 before FP6a, or 9.7 before FP2
-
Identify users granted DBADM authorityQuery 'SELECT GRANTOR, GRANTEE, AUTHID FROM SYSCAT.DBAUTH WHERE AUTHIDTYPE = 'U' AND DBPADM = 'Y''Affected if Any users are listed with DBADM authority granted
-
Check for recent DBADM revocation eventsReview DB2 audit logs or query system history tables for REVOKE statements on DBADM authorityAffected if Revocation events exist for users who previously held DBADM
-
Test if revoked users can still execute non-DDL statementsAs a user whose DBADM was revoked, attempt to execute a non-DDL statement such as 'SELECT * FROM SYSIBM.SYSDUMMY1' or other privileged operationsAffected if Revoked user can still execute non-DDL statements despite revocation
-
Verify current DBADM authority assignmentsQuery 'SELECT GRANTEE, DBPADM FROM SYSCAT.DBAUTH' to list current DBADM grantees and compare against expected permissionsAffected if Discrepancy exists between granted DBADM status and expected permissions
Environment is affected if running a vulnerable DB2 version (9.1 pre-FP10, 9.5 pre-FP6a, or 9.7 pre-FP2) AND users whose DBADM authority was revoked can still execute non-DDL statements.
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 appropriate IBM DB2 Fix Pack: FP10 or later for version 9.1, FP6a or later for version 9.5, and FP2 or later for version 9.7. Review and re-audit user privileges to ensure DBADM authority is correctly assigned post-patch.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2011-0757 — 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-2011-0757 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