CVE-2012-0714
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 · uneditedCross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in IBM Maximo Asset Management 6.2 through 7.5, as used in SmartCloud Control Desk, Tivoli Asset Management for IT, Tivoli Service Request Manager, Maximo Service Desk, and Change and Configuration Management Database (CCMDB), allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of unspecified victims 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 · moderate confidenceCross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in IBM Maximo Asset Management versions 6.2 through 7.5 and associated products. The flaw allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of unspecified victims by tricking authenticated users into unknowingly submitting malicious requests to the application.
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= 7.0= 6.2.0.0= 7.1.0.0= 7.5.0.0= 6.2= 7.0= 6.0= 6.2= 7.0= 7.1= 7.2= 7.0CVSS 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.
-
Identify the installed IBM product and versionLocate the Maximo/CCMD/Smartcloud Control Desk/Tivoli installation and check the version. This is typically found in the About dialog, installation logs, or version.properties file in the installation directory.Affected if The installed version matches the affected products: IBM Maximo Asset Management 6.2.x-7.5.x, IBM Change And Configuration Management Database 6.0 or 7.0, IBM Maximo Service Desk 6.2, IBM Smartcloud Control Desk 7.0, or IBM Tivoli Asset Management For IT 6.0-7.2, or IBM Tivoli Service Request Manage
-
Confirm the product is accessible over networkVerify the web interface is accessible. This is typically accessed via HTTP/HTTPS on application servers like WebSphere or Tomcat.Affected if The application is accessible and accepts HTTP requests from users.
-
Determine if users are authenticated to the applicationCheck if there are active user sessions and whether the application processes requests from authenticated users.Affected if The application allows authenticated users to perform state-changing actions (create, modify, delete records, etc.).
You are affected if you are running any of the listed IBM products at the specified versions and users can authenticate to submit requests.
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 dataImplement anti-CSRF tokens (synchronizer token pattern) on all state-changing forms and validate Origin/Referer headers. For sensitive operations, require re-authentication or confirmation steps.
- Consultation4.0 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 $7,808.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-0714 — 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-2012-0714 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