CVE-2011-1683
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 WebSphere Application Server (WAS) 6.0.x through 6.0.2.43, 6.1.x before 6.1.0.37, and 7.0.x before 7.0.0.17 on z/OS, when a Local OS user registry or Federated Repository with RACF adapter is used, allows remote attackers to obtain unspecified application access via unknown 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 · high confidenceIBM WebSphere Application Server versions 6.0.x through 6.0.2.43, 6.1.x before 6.1.0.37, and 7.0.x before 7.0.0.17 on z/OS with Local OS user registry or Federated Repository using RACF adapter contain an unspecified vulnerability allowing remote attackers to gain unauthorized application access.
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= 6.0= 6.0.0.1= 6.0.0.2= 6.0.0.3= 6.0.1= 6.0.1.1= 6.0.1.2= 6.0.1.3= 6.0.1.5= 6.0.1.7= 6.0.1.9= 6.0.1.11CVSS 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
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/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.
-
Verify the operating system is z/OSCheck the underlying operating system where IBM WebSphere Application Server is installed. On z/OS, this is typically displayed in system logs or can be verified via the 'uname' command or through the WebSphere administration console system information.Affected if The server is running on an operating system other than z/OS, this specific vulnerability does not apply.
-
Identify the WebSphere Application Server versionAccess the WebSphere administration console and navigate to the version information page, or use the 'versionInfo' command from the bin directory. Look for the exact version number in the format such as 6.0.x, 6.1.x, or 7.0.x.Affected if The installed version falls within 6.0.x through 6.0.2.43, 6.1.x before 6.1.0.37, or 7.0.x before 7.0.0.17.
-
Confirm the user registry configurationIn the WebSphere administration console, navigate to Security > Global Security > User account repository. Check the 'Available realm definitions' setting or the 'User registry' configuration to identify whether Local OS user registry or Federated Repository is in use.Affected if The user registry is configured as Local OS or Federated Repository using the RACF adapter.
A system is affected if it runs on z/OS with WebSphere versions 6.0.x through 6.0.2.43, 6.1.x before 6.1.0.37, or 7.0.x before 7.0.0.17, and uses either Local OS user registry or Federated Repository with RACF adapter.
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 6.0.2.43 or higher (6.0.x), 6.1.0.37 or higher (6.1.x), or 7.0.0.17 or higher (7.0.x) on z/OS systems. Alternatively, review and modify the user registry configuration if upgrading is not feasible.
- 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-2011-1683 — 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-2011-1683 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