CVE-2011-1311
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 · uneditedThe Security component in IBM WebSphere Application Server (WAS) before 7.0.0.15, when a J2EE 1.4 application is used, determines the security role mapping on the basis of the ibm-application-bnd.xml file instead of the intended ibm-application-bnd.xmi file, which might allow remote authenticated users to gain privileges in opportunistic circumstances by requesting a service.
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 WebSphere Application Server before 7.0.0.15 has a security role mapping flaw in its Security component. When J2EE 1.4 applications are deployed, the server incorrectly reads security role mappings from ibm-application-bnd.xml instead of the intended ibm-application-bnd.xmi file, potentially allowing authenticated users to gain elevated privileges.
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<= 7.0.0.13= 2.0= 3.0= 3.0.2= 3.0.2.1= 3.0.2.2= 3.0.2.3= 3.0.2.4= 3.0.21= 3.5= 3.5.1= 3.5.2CVSS 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
- M
- Authentication
- Single
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:M/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 WebSphere Application Server versionRun 'aboutApplicationServer' in wsadmin or check the install location for version info. The version is typically found in the install_root/properties/version/ directory or via the administrative console under Servers > Server Types > WebSphere application servers > [server name]Affected if The installed version is 7.0.0.13 or earlier, or matches any of these versions: 2.0, 3.0, 3.0.2, 3.0.2.1, 3.0.2.2, 3.0.2.3, 3.0.2.4, 3.0.21, 3.5, 3.5.1, or 3.5.2
-
Identify J2EE 1.4 applications deployedReview deployed applications in the administrative console under Applications > Application Types > WebSphere enterprise applications. Check the deployment descriptors (application.xml) for J2EE version 1.4 specification, or inspect the META-INF/manifest.mf for the J2EE-Version headerAffected if J2EE 1.4 applications are deployed on the affected WebSphere version
-
Locate ibm-application-bnd.xml and ibm-application-bnd.xmi filesSearch for these files in the META-INF directory of deployed enterprise archive (EAR) files. The path is typically: installedApps/[app_name]/[module_name]/META-INF/ibm-application-bnd.xml and ibm-application-bnd.xmiAffected if Both ibm-application-bnd.xml and ibm-application-bnd.xmi exist in the same application deployment directory
-
Compare security role mappings between XML and XMI filesOpen both ibm-application-bnd.xml and ibm-application-bnd.xmi and compare the <security-role> elements. The XML file contains role-to-principal mappings that may differ from the XMI fileAffected if The ibm-application-bnd.xml file exists and contains security role mappings that differ from those in ibm-application-bnd.xmi, potentially granting elevated privileges to authenticated users
You are affected if WebSphere Application Server version is 7.0.0.13 or earlier (or one of the listed affected versions) AND J2EE 1.4 applications are deployed with both ibm-application-bnd.xml and ibm-application-bnd.xmi files present containing different security role mappings.
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 dataUpgrade IBM WebSphere Application Server to version 7.0.0.15 or later, or audit and correct the ibm-application-bnd.xml file to ensure proper security role mappings that align with intended ibm-application-bnd.xmi configurations.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing8.0 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 $8,448.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2011-1311 — 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-2011-1311 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