CVE-2014-0849
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 7.x before 7.5.0.3 IFIX027 and SmartCloud Control Desk 7.x before 7.5.0.3 and 7.5.1.x before 7.5.1.2 allow remote authenticated users to gain privileges by leveraging membership in two security groups.
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 Maximo Asset Management and SmartCloud Control Desk contain a privilege escalation vulnerability where authenticated users who are members of two specific security groups can gain elevated privileges beyond what those groups should normally provide. This is an authorization logic flaw in the security group membership handling.
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= 7.1.1.12= 7.0= 7.5= 7.5.0.0= 7.5.0.1= 7.5.0.2= 7.5.0.3= 7.5.1.0= 7.5.1.1CVSS 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
- Single
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:M/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 the installed Maximo Asset Management versionAccess the Maximo System Information window (Go to > System Configuration > Platform Installation > System Information) or check the version.txt file in the installation directoryAffected if The version matches any of: 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, or 7.1.1.12
-
Identify the installed SmartCloud Control Desk versionAccess the System Information panel from the SmartCloud Control Desk admin console or check the version.properties file in the installation directoryAffected if The version matches any of: 7.0, 7.5, 7.5.0.0, 7.5.0.1, 7.5.0.2, 7.5.0.3, 7.5.1.0, or 7.5.1.1
-
Review security group configurationsLog into Maximo/SmartCloud Control Desk as an administrator and navigate to Security > Groups to view all defined security groups in the systemAffected if Any security groups exist in the system (the vulnerability affects users who are members of specific groups)
-
Audit user memberships in security groupsUse the Security Groups application to list all users assigned to each group, or query the GROUPUSER table in the database to identify which users belong to which groupsAffected if Users are assigned to the two specific security groups that are known to trigger the privilege escalation logic flaw
A user is affected if they are running one of the listed versions AND have user accounts that are members of the two specific security groups involved in the authorization logic flaw.
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 the IBM IFIX027 for version 7.5.0.3 or upgrade to version 7.5.0.3 IFIX027/7.5.1.2 or later. Identify and audit user memberships in the affected security groups before applying the patch.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $5,504.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-0849 — 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-2014-0849 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