dbcve.org
Lotus DominoApplication · Ibm

CVE-2011-1519

HIGH · 10.0 CVSS v2.0 Published 2011-03-25
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
100/100
Remediation priority · Urgent
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
The remote console in the Server Controller in IBM Lotus Domino 7.x and 8.x verifies credentials against a file located at a UNC share pathname specified by the client, which allows remote attackers to bypass authentication, and consequently execute arbitrary code, by placing this pathname in the COOKIEFILE field. NOTE: this might overlap CVE-2011-0920.

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 confidence

The Server Controller in IBM Lotus Domino 7.x and 8.x contains an authentication bypass vulnerability where the remote console accepts credential verification against a file path specified by the client in the COOKIEFILE field. An attacker can specify a UNC share pathname they control, allowing them to bypass authentication entirely and execute arbitrary code on the server.

MitigationApply the vendor patch for this vulnerability or upgrade to a supported version of IBM Lotus Domino. Additionally, restrict network access to the Server Controller interface to trusted networks only as a defense-in-depth measure.

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
Lotus DominoApplication
Affected:= 7.0= 7.0.1= 7.0.1.1= 7.0.2= 7.0.2.1= 7.0.2.2= 7.0.2.3= 7.0.3= 7.0.3.1= 7.0.4= 7.0.4.1= 7.0.4.2

CVSS 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
Complete
Integrity
Complete
Availability
Complete

AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C

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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Verify IBM Lotus Domino is installed
    Check for Domino installation directory (typically C:\Lotus\Domino or /opt/ibm/lotus/domino) and look for program files such as nserver.exe, nrouter.exe, or the 'notes' binary.
    Affected if The software is not IBM Lotus Domino or it is not present on the system.
  2. Determine the installed Domino version
    Run the Domino console command 'show version' or check the version information in the Domino program directory. On Windows, right-click the executable and select Properties > Details to view the File Version.
    Affected if The installed version matches 7.0, 7.0.1, 7.0.1.1, 7.0.2, 7.0.2.1, 7.0.2.2, 7.0.2.3, 7.0.3, 7.0.3.1, 7.0.4, 7.0.4.1, or 7.0.4.2.
  3. Confirm Server Controller is enabled
    Check the Domino notes.ini configuration file (usually in the Domino data directory) for the 'ServerController=1' setting, or look for the 'Remote Server Controller' setting in the Domino Administrator client under Server > Setup > Server Controller.
    Affected if Server Controller is enabled (ServerController=1) and the HTTP or IIOP port for Server Controller is configured for remote access.
  4. Check network exposure of Server Controller
    Review firewall rules and the Domino httpd.cnf or notes.ini for ports 2050 (default Server Controller port) and ensure it is not accessible from untrusted networks. Look for 'ServerController_ListenPort=2050' in notes.ini.
    Affected if The Server Controller port (default 2050) is exposed to untrusted or public networks without network segmentation.

You are affected if IBM Lotus Domino version 7.0 through 7.0.4.2 is installed AND the Server Controller is enabled and accessible over the network, allowing an attacker to specify a malicious UNC path via the COOKIEFILE field to bypass authentication.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Apply the vendor patch for this vulnerability or upgrade to a supported version of IBM Lotus Domino. Additionally, restrict network access to the Server Controller interface to trusted networks only as a defense-in-depth measure.

Fix this in Lotus Domino Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation4.0 h
  • Testing6.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
14.0 hours of engineering $2,380
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,808.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2011-1519 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2011-1519 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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