CVE-2014-3867
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 · uneditedThe Meeting Server in IBM Sametime 8.x through 8.5.2.1 and 9.x through 9.0.0.1 does not include the HTTPOnly flag in a Set-Cookie header for an unspecified cookie, which makes it easier for remote attackers to obtain potentially sensitive information via script access to this cookie, a different vulnerability than CVE-2013-3984.
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 Sametime Meeting Server versions 8.x through 8.5.2.1 and 9.x through 9.0.0.1 fail to set the HTTPOnly flag on a session cookie in the Set-Cookie header. This allows JavaScript code (e.g., from an XSS payload) to read the cookie value, potentially exposing session tokens or other sensitive data to attackers.
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= 8.0.0.0= 8.0.1.0= 8.0.1.1= 8.0.2.0= 8.0.2.1= 8.5.0.0= 8.5.1.0= 8.5.1.1= 8.5.2.0= 8.5.2.1= 9.0.0.0= 9.0.0.1CVSS 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
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N
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 Sametime Meeting Server installation and versionLocate the Sametime installation directory (commonly under IBM/WebSphere or similar paths) and check version.info or about files. In the WebSphere Admin Console, navigate to Servers > Server Types > IBM Sametime servers to view installed versions.Affected if Version matches 8.0.0.0 through 8.5.2.1 OR 9.0.0.0 through 9.0.0.1
-
Capture Set-Cookie headers from the Sametime serverLog into the Sametime Meeting Server web interface using a browser with developer tools (Network tab) or use a tool like curl to fetch the login page and meeting URLs. Save the HTTP response headers.Affected if Any Set-Cookie header for a session-related cookie lacks the HTTPOnly attribute
-
Inspect session cookies for HTTPOnly flagExamine each Set-Cookie header in the response. Look for session identifiers, auth tokens, or similar sensitive cookie names. Verify whether the string 'HttpOnly' appears in the cookie specification.Affected if A session cookie is present in the response without the HttpOnly flag appended to it
Your environment is affected if you are running IBM Sametime Meeting Server version 8.0.0.0-8.5.2.1 or 9.0.0.0-9.0.0.1 and the server sets session cookies without the HTTPOnly attribute in the Set-Cookie header.
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 dataConfigure the affected cookie(s) to include the HTTPOnly attribute in the Set-Cookie header. This is typically done in the WebSphere Application Server configuration or the application code that sets the cookie.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-3867 — 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-2014-3867 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