CVE-2014-0885
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 the Admin Web UI in IBM Lotus Protector for Mail Security 2.8.x before 2.8.1-22905 allows remote authenticated users 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 · high confidenceCross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the Admin Web UI of IBM Lotus Protector for Mail Security 2.8.x before version 2.8.1-22905 allows remote authenticated attackers to execute unauthorized administrative actions by tricking authenticated users into submitting malicious requests, hijacking their session authentication.
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= 2.8= 2.8.1CVSS 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
- 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 installed version of IBM Lotus Protector for Mail SecurityAccess the Admin Web UI and navigate to the About or System Information page to view the exact version number, or check the product documentation for version retrieval commands.Affected if The installed version is 2.8.x or 2.8.1 prior to build 22905.
-
Confirm Admin Web UI is accessibleVerify that the web-based administrative interface is enabled and reachable via browser at the configured port (typically 443 or 8443).Affected if The Admin Web UI is accessible without additional network segmentation or access controls.
-
Check session cookie configurationLog into the Admin Web UI and inspect the session cookies using browser developer tools. Look for SameSite attribute configuration on authentication cookies.Affected if Session cookies lack SameSite attribute or are set to None without secure flag.
-
Identify presence of anti-CSRF tokens in administrative formsSubmit a request to create or modify an administrative setting and inspect whether the form includes a unique anti-CSRF token parameter that changes with each session.Affected if Administrative forms lack anti-CSRF token validation or use predictable/static tokens.
A user is affected if the installed version is 2.8.x or 2.8.1 prior to 2.8.1-22905 AND the Admin Web UI is accessible with session cookies lacking proper CSRF protections.
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 dataUpgrade IBM Lotus Protector for Mail Security to version 2.8.1-22905 or later. Additionally, implement anti-CSRF tokens in the Admin Web UI and configure appropriate SameSite cookie attributes.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,096.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-0885 — 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-2014-0885 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