CVE-2012-5936
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 Sterling B2B Integrator 5.1 and 5.2 and Sterling File Gateway 2.1 and 2.2 do not set the secure flag for the session cookie in an https session, which makes it easier for remote attackers to capture this cookie by intercepting its transmission within an http session.
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 Sterling B2B Integrator 5.1/5.2 and Sterling File Gateway 2.1/2.2 fail to set the Secure flag on session cookies, allowing them to be transmitted over insecure HTTP connections even when the user is in an HTTPS session. This enables man-in-the-middle attackers to intercept session credentials.
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= 5.1= 5.2= 2.1= 2.2CVSS 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
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:N/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 product and versionLocate the installed version of IBM Sterling B2B Integrator or Sterling File Gateway in the system documentation, installation directory, or administrative console. Common locations include the installation logs or the admin interface.Affected if The installed version is 5.1 or 5.2 for Sterling B2B Integrator, or 2.1 or 2.2 for Sterling File Gateway.
-
Verify HTTPS is enabledConfirm that the application is configured to accept HTTPS connections by checking the web server or application server configuration for SSL/TLS settings.Affected if HTTPS is enabled and the application is accessible over HTTPS.
-
Capture and inspect session cookiesLog into the application over HTTPS using a browser or HTTP client. Capture the session cookie(s) sent in the response headers using browser developer tools, a network trace, or a proxy. Examine the Set-Cookie header(s) for the presence of the Secure attribute.Affected if Session cookies are present but the Secure flag is absent from the Set-Cookie header.
-
Verify cookie transmission behaviorAttempt to access the application over HTTP (non-secure) and observe whether session cookies are still transmitted by the browser or client.Affected if Session cookies are transmitted even when the request is made over HTTP.
A user is affected if they are running version 5.1 or 5.2 of Sterling B2B Integrator or version 2.1 or 2.2 of Sterling File Gateway, AND the session cookies lack the Secure flag, allowing them to be sent over insecure HTTP connections.
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 dataConfigure the application server or web server (IBM HTTP Server) to set the Secure attribute on all session cookies, ensuring they are only transmitted over encrypted HTTPS connections.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,408.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-5936 — 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-2012-5936 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