CVE-2014-0944
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 RES Console in Rule Execution Server in IBM Operational Decision Manager 7.5 before FP3 IF37, 8.0 before MP1 FP2, and 8.5 before MP1 IF26 allows remote authenticated users to hijack the authentication of arbitrary users for requests that insert XSS sequences.
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 confidenceCSRF vulnerability in IBM Operational Decision Manager's RES Console allows authenticated remote attackers to hijack other users' sessions for requests that inject XSS sequences. The vulnerability exists in Rule Execution Server across versions 7.5, 8.0, and 8.5 before their respective interim fixes.
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= 7.5= 8.0= 8.5CVSS 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 IBM ODM versionCheck the installed IBM Operational Decision Manager version through the IBM Installation Manager, the installation directory properties, or by accessing the RES Console and reviewing the version information typically displayed in the console header or about sectionAffected if The installed version is 7.5, 8.0, or 8.5 without the respective interim fixes (FP3 IF37 for v7.5, MP1 FP2 for v8.0, or MP1 IF26 for v8.5)
-
Verify RES Console accessibilityDetermine if the Rule Execution Server Console (RES Console) is exposed and accessible to users. This is typically found at a path like /res/ or /DecisionRunner/ under the application server context rootAffected if The RES Console is publicly or loosely accessible over the network without additional authentication layers beyond the application login
-
Confirm session management configurationReview the web.xml deployment descriptor and IBM ODM security configuration files for the RES Console application to verify if CSRF token validation is implemented for state-changing operationsAffected if CSRF protection mechanisms are not enabled or are missing for the RES Console endpoints handling user requests
A user is affected if they are running IBM Operational Decision Manager versions 7.5, 8.0, or 8.5 without the respective interim fixes and have the RES Console accessible to authenticated users.
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 appropriate IBM interim fix (FP3 IF37 for v7.5, MP1 FP2 for v8.0, or MP1 IF26 for v8.5) and validate that CSRF protections are functioning correctly.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-0944 — 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-2014-0944 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