CVE-2013-4027
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 Maximo Asset Management 6.2 through 6.2.8, 7.1 through 7.1.1.12, and 7.5 before 7.5.0.5 allows remote authenticated users to bypass intended access restrictions via unspecified 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 confidenceAuthenticated users can bypass intended access restrictions in IBM Maximo Asset Management versions 6.2-6.2.8, 7.1-7.1.1.12, and before 7.5.0.5. The specific attack vectors are not detailed in the advisory, but the vulnerability allows privilege escalation beyond the user's intended authorization level.
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= 7.1= 7.1.1= 7.1.1.1= 7.1.1.2= 7.1.1.5= 7.1.1.6= 7.1.1.7= 7.1.1.8= 7.1.1.9= 7.1.1.10= 7.1.1.11= 7.1.1.12CVSS 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
- Single
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/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.
-
Identify installed Maximo versionAccess Maximo Administration mode and navigate to System Configuration > Platform Configuration > System Properties, or check the version.txt/version.info file in the Maximo installation directoryAffected if The installed version is 6.2 through 6.2.8, 7.1.x, 7.1.1.x through 7.1.1.12, or any version before 7.5.0.5
-
Verify user role assignmentsIn Maximo, go to Security > Users or Security > User Groups and review the roles assigned to each authenticated user accountAffected if Users have been assigned roles or permissions beyond what they require for their job function, indicating potential privilege escalation
-
Review security audit logs for unauthorized actionsAccess Maximo Audit logs through Security > Audit or examine the Maximo database audit tables for records where users performed actions outside their typical scopeAffected if Audit logs show users executing administrative functions, modifying system configurations, or accessing data outside their assigned security groups
-
Check for unexpected system configuration changesReview system properties, automation scripts, and workflow configurations that could be modified through privilege escalation, typically found in System Configuration > Platform ConfigurationAffected if Configurations have been altered by users who should not have modification rights for those settings
You are affected if your installed IBM Maximo Asset Management version falls within 6.2-6.2.8, 7.1-7.1.1.12, or is earlier than 7.5.0.5 AND you have users with elevated privileges that may have been obtained through unauthorized access.
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 dataApply IBM Maximo patches (7.5.0.5 and vendor-supplied fixes for 6.x/7.1.x versions). Until patches are applied, audit user permissions and restrict access to minimum necessary privileges.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing12.0 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 $7,616.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-4027 — 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-2013-4027 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