CVE-2013-4058
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 · uneditedMultiple SQL injection vulnerabilities in IBM InfoSphere Information Server 8.x through 8.5 FP3, 8.7.x through 8.7 FP2, and 9.1.x through 9.1.2.0 allow remote authenticated users to execute arbitrary SQL commands via unspecified interfaces.
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 confidenceMultiple SQL injection vulnerabilities in IBM InfoSphere Information Server allow remote authenticated users to execute arbitrary SQL commands. The vulnerabilities exist in unspecified interfaces where user input is not properly sanitized, allowing attackers to inject malicious SQL queries through the application's input fields.
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= 8.5= 8.5.0.1= 8.5.0.2= 8.5.0.3= 8.7= 8.7.0.1= 8.7.0.2= 9.1= 9.1.0.1= 9.1.2CVSS 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
- 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 IBM InfoSphere Information Server versionRun the following command to check the installed version: lsitab -a | grep iis or check the IBM InfoSphere installation directory for version information. Alternatively, check the About dialog in the InfoSphere client or use the 'iisversion' command if available in the installation bin directory.Affected if The installed version matches any of these: 8.5, 8.5.0.1, 8.5.0.2, 8.5.0.3, 8.7, 8.7.0.1, 8.7.0.2, 9.1, 9.1.0.1, or 9.1.2.
-
Confirm the web-based client interface is accessibleVerify if the IBM InfoSphere web client or REST API endpoints are reachable. Check network accessibility of ports typically used by InfoSphere (such as 9443, 8080, or custom ports configured during installation).Affected if The web interface is exposed and accessible to network users, increasing the attack surface for remote SQL injection.
-
Review InfoSphere server logs for SQL syntax errorsExamine logs in the InfoSphere installation directory, typically under logs/ or WAS_logs/, for entries containing SQL syntax errors, unexpected SQL keywords (UNION, SELECT, INSERT, DROP), or database connection errors that may indicate injection attempts.Affected if Logs contain SQL error messages or suspicious SQL fragments that suggest injection testing or exploitation.
-
Check database audit logs for unexpected SQL commandsQuery the database audit logs or transaction logs of the underlying database (such as DB2 or Oracle) that InfoSphere uses. Look for SQL commands executed by the InfoSphere application service account that are unusual, contain concatenated user input, or originate from unexpected application workflows.Affected if Database audit logs show SQL commands containing user-supplied input directly concatenated into queries without parameterization.
-
Verify user input validation mechanismsInspect the InfoSphere configuration files or deployment descriptors to determine whether custom interfaces or data integration jobs accept direct user input and whether input validation or parameterized queries are implemented.Affected if The system uses direct user input in database queries without proper sanitization or parameterized query usage.
You are affected if your installed IBM InfoSphere Information Server version is one of the listed affected versions (8.5 through 9.1.2) AND the web interface is accessible to authenticated users who can supply input to application fields.
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 InfoSphere Information Server patches (APAR IC97023 or subsequent fix packs) to address the SQL injection vulnerabilities. Additionally, implement input validation and parameterized queries as defense-in-depth measures.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing8.0 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 $6,080.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-4058 — 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-2013-4058 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