CVE-2011-1046
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 FileNet P8 Content Engine (aka P8CE) 4.0.1 through 5.0.0, as used in FileNet P8 Content Manager (CM) and FileNet P8 Business Process Manager (BPM), does not require the PRIVILEGED_WRITE access role for all intended Object Store modifications, which allows remote attackers to change a privileged property of an object 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 · moderate confidenceIBM FileNet P8 Content Engine versions 4.0.1 through 5.0.0 contains an access control flaw where the PRIVILEGED_WRITE access role is not properly enforced for certain Object Store modifications. This allows authenticated remote attackers to modify privileged properties of objects they should not have write access to, effectively bypassing intended authorization boundaries.
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= 4.0.1= 4.0.1.10= 4.0.1.11= 4.0.1.12= 4.0.1.13= 4.5.0= 4.5.0.2= 4.5.1.3= 4.5.1.4= 4.5.1.5= 4.5.1.6= 5.0.0all versionsall versionsCVSS 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.
-
Identify IBM FileNet P8 Content Engine installation and versionLocate the Content Engine installation directory and check the version information file or use the IBM FileNet Enterprise Manager administrative tool to query the Content Engine version. Common locations include the installation root directory or check the 'Versions' utility in the administration console.Affected if The installed version matches any of: 4.0.1, 4.0.1.10, 4.0.1.11, 4.0.1.12, 4.0.1.13, 4.5.0, 4.5.0.2, 4.5.1.3, 4.5.1.4, 4.5.1.5, 4.5.1.6, or 5.0.0.
-
Identify IBM FileNet P8 Business Process Manager installationCheck for the presence of IBM FileNet P8 Business Process Manager components in the environment using IBM's administration tools or by locating typical installation directories for this component.Affected if IBM FileNet P8 Business Process Manager is installed, regardless of version (all versions are affected).
-
Identify IBM FileNet P8 Content Manager installationCheck for the presence of IBM FileNet P8 Content Manager components in the environment using IBM's administration tools or by locating typical installation directories for this component.Affected if IBM FileNet P8 Content Manager is installed, regardless of version (all versions are affected).
-
Verify if Object Store modifications with PRIVILEGED_WRITE are in useReview the Object Store configuration and audit logs to determine if any modifications are being performed that utilize the PRIVILEGED_WRITE access role, which handles privileged property changes on objects.Affected if PRIVILEGED_WRITE access role modifications are being performed on Object Store objects, as this is the specific condition where the access control bypass applies.
You are affected if IBM FileNet P8 Content Engine versions 4.0.1 through 5.0.0, Business Process Manager (any version), or Content Manager (any version) is installed and the system performs Object Store modifications using the PRIVILEGED_WRITE role.
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 dataEnsure proper enforcement of PRIVILEGED_WRITE access role requirements for all Object Store modifications and apply any available vendor patches or configuration hardening to restrict privileged property modifications to authorized users only.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing12.0 h
- Review / QA8.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $12,352.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2011-1046 — 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-2011-1046 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